Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive328

Restore Varidesk during deletion 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.

---

It may be prudent to restore Varidesk during its deletion review. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I did that, but having looked at it I've deleted it again, because it looks far too close to a copyvio to me. Quite apart from things like "Vari manufactures 300 products that assemble within minutes and are perfectly suited for flexible workspaces.", "A lower price point makes this Electric Standing Desk a great option for work-from-home" and "The VariDesk Pro Plus™ desktop converter comes fully assembled out of the box", an amount of the text appears to have been paraphrased from the company's own website (and Amazon). Incidentally, there was a G11 speedy-deletion tag applied before it was deleted. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  Also, for the record - there is no requirement that a speedy deletion tag be applied before an admin speedies a page - the admin may speedy on their own initiative without the tag. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:35, 13 December 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.

Requests for page protection backlog

FWIW, I don't recall having ever seen WP:RfPP this backlogged, with over 40 entries in the queue. Just sayin'... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe we had sixty a couple of weeks ago, but indeed forty requires immediate action (in the meanwhile, reduced to twenty).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

65 right now--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:PERM/PCR

Please have a look to the backlog of requests at WP:PERM/PCR. Thanks 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, AmandaNP, Swarm, QEDK, and ToBeFree: as they have handled requests there earlier. 42.110.223.239 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I've responded to a few of them. Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

All of them were dealt with. 😢 --qedk (t 愛 c) 11:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Me getting banned

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 there any way I can be unbanned from editing Articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovelife68 68 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Responded on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 15:52, 14 December 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.

Report on Mirrored7

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.

---

• Mirrored7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Check Mirrored7's recent contributions. They went on a serial rampage on a bunch of Taylor Swift articles in order to WP:POINT. Their recent edit to the lead of Sweetener (album) was rightly reverted by two other editors (Lydïa (talk · contribs) and Doggy54321 (talk · contribs)), because it was unsourced. So Mirrored7 decided they'd go make disruptive edits on Taylor Swift (to whom they have had shown strong dislike for a reason I don't know) articles with an edit summary of "no sources" whereas in fact they're all perfectly & strongly sourced in the "Music & Lyrics" sections of each of those articles. First and foremost, Mirrored7 didn't cite any source when they added what they added, and that's the fundamental reason why it was removed. Admins, I request you to please look into this. It's tiring honestly. It's impossible to create a discussion with this user because they remove any kind of talk from their user page. They don't wanna learn. They don't seem to understand that you need to source something before you add it to Wikipedia. BawinV (talk)

Well, first of all it's sourced, sections below. I overreacted a bit, because it seems that there's a bias toward Taylor Swift from this editor and on this site in general. Also, my edits are sourced as needed. I thought by going through the article of album, it would be self-explanatory for certain users, but I guess not. I'm always open for discussion, but how it seems, you are not ready for it. That's also why you need to go to a admin. And can I remember about you distruptive edits on the Ariana Grande you did months ago? Stop trying to make yourself better than I am, because you are clearly NOT. Mirrored7 (talk)

I'm looking into it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Examples that BawinV gave are just the tip of the iceberg. This user also has an issue with WP:NPOV and WP:EW. For edit warring, they have reverted three times in 24h and then ignored the article (see history of Sweetener (album) from today) multiple times on multiple articles. They have also been blocked for edit warring before. For NPOV, they show a bias towards Ariana Grande, and a hatred towards Taylor Swift. See this edit I made to User talk:Mirrored7 for diffs/examples of bias towards Grande/hatred towards Swift. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@BawinV and Doggy54321: Have there been further problems that you've noticed? I've checked up on Mirrored's recent contributions and nothing since this report strikes me as a problem, but wanted to check with you since you both know the topic area better than I do. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: thanks for checking in! No, there haven’t been any problems since this report. I’m assuming in good faith that this user is trying to change for the better. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 00:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mirrored7: I think you should take another look at the message Doggy54321 left on your talk page a few weeks ago. It's genuinely good advice. It's important that we have editors who have multiple points of view, and your perspective on Taylor Swift and Ariana Grande would be valuable for the encyclopedia. However you clearly are being disruptive and if you do not quickly fix your approach I will block you indefinitely. For the sake of clarity, you need to (1) stop edit warring--just pretend the undo button doesn't exist; (2) discuss things calmly on article talk pages--if you need to give yourself a few hours to cool down, do so, there's no rush (3) don't add material to articles if you cannot provide a reliable source--especially avoid primary sources like song lyrics and certainly do not insert your own analysis. Right now, this is friendly advice because I genuinely believe you have a valuable perspective, but if you continue to disrupt the encyclopedia by personalizing disputes you will be blocked. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Mirrored7 has further exercised disruptive editing on Taylor Swift-related articles, most recently 1989 (Taylor Swift album) and Red (Taylor Swift album). As these two articles are on my watchlist, I doubt if this user also exercises disruptive editing on other articles beyond my scope of interest. The issue is, as I observe, that although this user has received various warnings (see this user's talk page history), it seems that they are not open-minded enough to realize their disruptive behaviors, even went so far as to remove others' well-intended, useful advice, HĐ (talk) 04:29, 11 December 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.

Arrrrgh!

{Cough} Ahem, there's a small backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, if any would like to look. I would, but my stomach has made other plans. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Unhelpful Article Vandalism

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

---

Not an issue for this noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – moved to Talk:Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families

Primefac (talk) 20:31, 17 December 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.

Gaming of article titles

I saw this draft while doing AfC review, but I saw that it the artist's article was called "Apex and Bionic (AB)". I saw that there was no article called simply "Apex and Bionic", but I realized that that title was salted. Can you either unprotect the title so I can move it there, or delete this page and salt it? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Dropped to ECP. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Banned for a week due to a baseless accusation that was unjustifiable

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 Wikipedia Administrators,

I want to apologize in advanced if I am using any incorrect protocol for creating this discussion thread or if I am out of line at all for this, but I wanted to address an issue and get your opinions on something that has been frustrating me and had arose last week. I admittedly was having an edit-war dispute with another individual by the name of "Kansas Bear" (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kansas_Bear) on the "Aq Qoyunlu" wikipedia page (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aq_Qoyunlu). As I've mentioned in the "Talk" section of that article, my primary and only dispute was the fact that in the "Common Language" section at the time, it directly insinuated that the Azerbaijani language was used strictly in poetry only. The reason as to how I ended up onto the Aq Qoyunlu Wikipedia page in the first place was because I was indulging in a civil conversation with another user on the social media site Reddit, where we were discussing this particular dynasty in general. I visited the Wikipedia page after our conversation, and saw something which appeared at the, troublesome. On a side note as well, now it is insinuating that the Azerbaijani and Persian were used only in poetry, and this only brings confusion to readers who stumble upon this page. ANYWAYS, this user; Kansas Bear, out of nowhere creates a thread topic hours later (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WikiNutt/Archive) and accuses me of being an individual by the name of "Relurgotov".

I have absolutely no affiliation with that user and have never heard of him before. I am also not coordinating any attacks whatsoever with any other individual as that investigation suggests out of thin air, period. One of the Wikipedia Administrators (Oshwah) thankfully mentions that he verified that I am not that user, "Unrelated as far as technical evidence goes". Another Wikipedia Administrator, however, named "GeneralNotability" (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GeneralNotability) enters and says the following,

"Clerk note: Unrelated technically, but almost certainly coordinating. Since they're clearly tag-teaming to edit war, I'm treating them as meatpuppets. WikiNutt blocked one week, Relurgotov Blocked without tags"

I was banned for one week as a result of this. The ban was lifted yesterday, but I'm overall unhappy about this situation and personally feel that perhaps moderator privilege's were abused in this regard. I saw that on GeneralNotability main page, he lists that he's available on Discord and I reached out to him (see this link: https://i.imgur.com/AZroElX.png). I unfortunately still have not heard back from him. I'm just disappointed by the action taken against me, that such a baseless accusation resulted in me getting banned for a week. It wasn't fair, it wasn't just, there was no evidence, and it was baseless in all regards. I do not understand where he drew the connection and dots that I am "almost certainly coordinating" an attack and am a "meatpuppet". With all due respect, I found some comedy in this accusation but I also became infuriated at the same time. I am also now on the Wikipedia Discord channel and have verified my identity there. If you would like to reach out on any other platform, talk on phone, email, etc., you let me know as I am open to discuss this subject with anyone - in a civil open manner. I can provide anything you wish of me and would just like to clear my name in general, because as of now, I'm still accused of being that individual as seen on his page when I click on it (located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Relurgotov).

Thank you all for your time, stay safe and happy holidays!

WikiNutt (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiNutt, did the conversation on Reddit discuss the Wikipedia pages in question? Quick note: I have notified GeneralNotability of this discussion on your behalf; please do so yourself when bringing people up on administrative noticeboards – it's required. Blablubbs|talk 10:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Blablubbs, and thanks for taking interest in my post! My short and simple answer is absolutely not - I didn't mention the Wikipedia page whatsoever, we were just discussing various dynasties in the area during those periods in history. There isn't a single soul that knows that I on occasion, edit on Wikipedia. None of my friends, nobody on discord, nobody on Reddit, etc. On the internet, I use different usernames on all these platforms, so I can't be directly associated from other platforms to this Wikipedia account of mine and it's never been something that I've mentioned to anybody at all period. WikiNutt (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

WikiNutt, okay then. Two disclaimers: I am a) not an administrator and have b) worked together with GeneralNotability in the past, so there may be implicit bias here. What I can offer you is an attempt at an explanation of why you were blocked:

• On 22 November 2020, Relurgotov made these two sequental edits, which were quickly reverted by Beshogur. A few days later, you, in turn reinstated Relurgotov's edits.
• A similar thing happened on another article, where Relurgotov made this edit on 8 December, was reverted by Kansas Bear, only for you to reinstate the edit once more.

Although agreeing with other people is of course allowed, it's understandable that this makes people suspicious. Relurgotov has an extremely low number of contributions; the likelihood that they would make two controversial edits on two occasions, only for them to get reverted and then reinstated by you (which, by the way, may be construed as approaching or constituting edit warring), is quite low. It seems reasonable to assume, then, that there is a relationship between those two accounts – the options being either sockpuppetry (disruptive use of multiple accounts by one person) or meatpuppetry (off-wiki coordination to influence on-wiki processes), which is likely why the sockpuppet investigation was filed. While Oshwah didn't produce positive CU results, that does not preclude the occurence of sockpuppetry that isn't detectable by technical measures, or indeed the occurence of meatpuppetry. Checkuser is just one datapoint out of many. Given how common the occurence of sock- and meatpuppetry is, especially in contentious topic areas such as the one you are editing in, making the conclusion that there is some link between two accounts based on behaviour alone seems reasonable, and I don't think that GeneralNotability is the only person who would have made that call. Whether this is a "good block" is for others to decide, but it is certainly an understandable one. On a final note, I think you were a little too quick here – judging from the timestamps, you waited about 24 hours between your initial attempt at contacting GN and opening this thread. We should keep in mind that Wikipedia is a hobby – people may be working, sleeping, or simply busy with other stuff, whether on- or offwiki. Best, Blablubbs|talk 11:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I also want to add that sock- and meatpuppetry are usually sanctioned in similar or identical ways; since they lead to equally undesirable outcomes for the encyclopaedia, we often treat them as functionally identical. Blablubbs|talk 12:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Taking a look at the "View History" section of the Aq Qoyunlu page, it now makes sense where and why "Relurgotov" came up from (see pic: https://i.imgur.com/FZjF6pc.png). His or her username at the time was completely irrelevant to me and I did not pay an inkling or attention into remember who this user was. So hearing that I was accused of being the individual caught me by complete and questionable surprise. Regarding the edited material, I want to openly note that I agreed with that said users edits on that topic and that I still agree with them. It's an unfortunate coincidence for me though that the user happened to have edited and involved him or herself on that page the same day as me.

I adamantly maintain the personal truth that I am not that user, have no affiliation with that user, and am completely open (nothing to hide) about my own personal identity and can further in-depth discuss things with anyone further on any other platform to prove it, if they wish. I browse Wikipedia on a daily basis reading many articles, primarily because of convenience. This page, after reading it, personally stuck out to me because of what it insinuated in the side section of the article and what I know about these various dynasties (of same or similar origins from these same time periods). Recent edits to this article (right now) have made things even more confusing for outside readers who stumble onto the page than it did before as well (referring to when I reverted one of the editions). I don't contribute or edit any of the physics, mathematics or general science articles on Wikipedia. I find those articles in particular to be spectacular, on point and well cited. There isn't really much room for there to exist any impartiality for religious, ethnic or racial biases. However, topics revolving around politics, ethnic identity and history of certain dynasties, at certain times appear to be brigaded by certain biased and impartial parties. I've noted this by looking through the "View History" section at times. In addition, sources at times, cited in these articles are also derived from biased or questionable organizations as well who are not impartial on the topic at hand (usually seen in articles about recent wars and political disputes). With regards to questioning certain cited sources, I will take that to the "Talk" section to discuss and not pester you guys about it.

But I'm going to however insist here with you about disagreeing with the fact that what I have done nothing to warrant a one-week block. There was zero evidence to have suggested I am that user or affiliated in some manner with that user, and the sockcheck? (I believe it's an IP check) should have been sufficient enough. I'm my personal ISP, my internet provider is Comcast and I can reveal any more details if needed that I have nothing to hide. Claiming that I was "coordinating attacks" with that individual is unsubstantiated, groundless and just plain unfair. The time that user made his edit and the time I made my edit (reversion) don't even coincidence together. The user made the post on 06:06, 8 December 2020 (not sure what 06:06 represents in the standard American 12-hour clock) and my reversion was at 21:59, 8 December 2020 - it appears to be many hours apart. It should lastly be well noted, that people happen to have concurring views over various political and historical topics. I do again reiterate that I agree that the pure coincidence that this user edited the same day can be perceived as suspicious from you guys, but I think the verdict was unjust and I shouldn't have been banned for a week. Even as of now, when I click on that persons account page, my username pops up where it claims I'm that user "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiNutt) -- ????????????. Just freaking ridiculous at the end of the day, I say.

Anyways, thanks for hearing me out... WikiNutt (talk) 12:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

So. Kansas Bear filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiNutt last week. Oshwah performed a checkuser investigation and found at WikiNutt and found them unrelated. Reviewing the diffs (particularly this and this), I saw that both were trying to make the same change on Aq Qoyunlu, to the point of Relurgotov removing text, being reverted, and then WikiNutt showing up later that day (to an article they'd never edited before) to undo the revert. That, to me, suggested that they were in some way working together, and since checkuser came back negative I treated them as meatpuppets working together to edit-war. Could my judgement be wrong? Absolutely. The determination of meatpuppetry, in the end, a judgment call based on a fairly limited set of data, and we can only say how things look, not determine what's actually happening behind the scenes. If I was wrong about that, I apologize to WikiNutt and Relurgotov, and if other admins do not think that the call of meatpuppetry is correct then by all means unblock Relurgotov and censure me in whatever way you find appropriate. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Discord - I generally don't answer unsolicited PMs there (or on IRC, for that matter), and that goes double for block discussions. Unless private evidence is involved, I think that any discussion relating to a block should stay on-wiki. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the truthfulness and honesty in your post. I was angry at the ban, but your apology was more than enough and I respect that you're offering it in the first place. I also apologize for personally reaching out to you on Discord, I really didn't think you'd mind at all and I find it to be far more interpersonal and easier to communicate and come to an understanding when talking one-to-one, especially in a voice chat environment for instance. Less room for conflict as well. What's done is done and I would only appreciate it now if I wasn't associated and affiliated with that other user. Truthfully speaking as well, I don't really care about what happens to that user or who that user is, but I don't want to be associated with someone who is accused of abusing multiple accounts. I don't view it fair for me and I don't want my username here to be tarnished any further as it currently stands here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Relurgotov.

I however still want to raise the issue of this user "User:Kansas Bear", who I feel instigated and created this entire mess in the first place. It was this user who baselessly accused me in the first place, which got the moderators involved in something that I think shouldn't of happened in the first place. I agree and take personal responsibility that the user Kansas Bear and I were within the limited time-period, "edit-warring" with one another. I agreed with the other user "Relurgotov" and he didn't. I've personally moved things to the "Talk" section of that article.

Anyways, between you and I GeneralNotability, I'm glad we came to some form of understanding and everything between us is good from my perspective once the association between me and "Relugotov" is broken. Regards, WikiNutt (talk) 14:46, 17 December 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.

Self-requested blocks for Doppelgänger accounts

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.

---

Because my username is pretty easy to impersonate, I've created a bunch of Doppelgänger accounts to prevent that; since they're not supposed to ever edit, could an admin please block:

• BIablubbs (BIABLUBBS)
• BlabIubbs (BLABIUBBS)
• BIabIubbs (BIABIUBBS)
• Blabblubs
• BIabbIubs (BIABBIUBS)
• BIabblubs (BIABBLUBS)
• Blabbiubs (messed up the capitalisation here, but the account creation form prevents registration of the username with a capital I anyway)

Please turn off autoblock so I don't have to go on an involuntary wikibreak. Thanks in advance and best, Blablubbs|talk 13:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been telling Blablubbs for ages that with all of their RedWarn usage, statistically they'd end up blocked sooner or later...and now I've blocked them seven times!) GeneralNotability (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GeneralNotability. I know you're eagerly awaiting the day that WP:Sockpuppet Investigations/Blablubbs finally turns into a bluelink, but you ought to give me credit where it's due: At least I tagged these myself. Blablubbs|talk 14:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think a username change might have been quicker. ;) —valereee (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, you apparently forgot to block Blablubbs. ;) No such user (talk) 11:41, 17 December 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 being removed

Gonna need some help. An SPA is deleting an RfC I started. [1] [2] [3]. starship.paint (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I manually reverted to reinstate the above section, after it was blanked by Bezeq2. This appears to be related to the below section, but as the named party, Bezeq2 should clearly not be removing this comment. Blablubbs|talk 14:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Blablubbs - [4] - user is replacing my comments with impunity. starship.paint (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

This user wants WP community to discuss textbook BLP-Violations with deleted sources that were unpublished by publishers that have no live secondary sources. The false information was already discuss here and edits would be considered are dead links that were removed and unpublished with no live secondary source; also see WP:V, WP:NPF, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BALASP, WP:PROPORTION, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the RFC. There is no copyright violation. That the links that the story (in 2013) are no longer working doesn't mean that the news source redated them, and we do not require "live" secondary links for this type of information; the use of something like archive.org for the original links is 100% in line for sourcing. Further, on talk pages to discuss BLP matters, this type of situation is clearly allowed, per WP:BLPTALK. The BLP/N discussion you cite addresses the problem with using elements like court documents and the like to source those crimes, but these are reliable news sources and that's a wholly different matter. --Masem (t) 15:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And I have partially-blocked Bezeq2 from the talk page in question for a couple of days for edit-warring over the RfC. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment The sources mentioned by Bezeq2 all have archived versions. News reporting websites frequently allow stories to go stale, and archived versions of the same story are just as acceptable as one that is "live". WP:DEADLINK deals with how to resolve linkrot. Bezeq2's rationale for blanking that is nonsense and blanking an RfC and noticeboard report is deliberately abusive. ♟♙ (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the rules for copyrighted content

How much of a article is considered "copying copyrighted content"? Thanks. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) See WP:COPYWITHIN. All article content is copyrighted and proper attribution information needs to be maintained when content is copied within Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Better to ask "is there a word limit." Bezeq2 (talk) 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to copying from other websites, you shouldn't copy anything at all, with certain exceptions. Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online is copyright. Exceptions include works of the US Government and material specifically released under license. Even then, proper attribution is required. Please see our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright.— Diannaa (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as an article being a copyright issue (i.e. something that would qualify for WP:G12), I always view that as a question of "would there be something left after I removed the violation?" If the answer is "less than a few sentences" then it should be G12'd, but if you can keep the lead intact and a paragraph of two, it should be trimmed and a {{revdel}} requested. Primefac (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all I thought I was correct and you have confirmed. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For context, it is worth noting that it appears the OP of this post had an AN thread filed against them presumably relating to the same matter as this. They removed that without summary and then posted this 2 minutes later. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Blablubbs has restored that thread above, and starship.paint posted it again below, all at the same timestamp as me typing this. Interesting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

That was not intentional and I havent knowledge of anything filed against me. I would not do knowingly. Bezeq2 (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

[5] ^ ?! starship.paint (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to buy that the initial removal at AN was an edit conflict, as no content was added in the same edit (that was added in a separate edit) - marked minor too, interestingly. And the removal on a particular admin's talk (User talk:Deepfriedokra), some admin starship chose at random from active admins, whilst it could be an edit conflict if you started writing before one posted, it's hard to buy that you both chose the same admin to deal with your dispute. Even AGF this seems like an attempt to evade scrutiny. Not necessarily saying that your removal is right or wrong - I haven't really looked into it - but removing attempts to seek admin review is obviously problematic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

For the record, also note that a RFPP for this talk page has been filed by Bezeq2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have some trouble believing that, since blanking others' comments seems to be something that you do with some regularity. Interested parties will also want to make note of the fact that both Bezeq2 and the preceeding account, Bezeq1, are single-purpose accounts and of this recent story on Wikipediocracy. Blablubbs|talk 14:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Question: , one SPI investigation closed & archived, one RFPP declined & redirected here, two threads on User talk:Deepfriedokra redirected here - are there any more WP:MULTI variations of this dispute? Cabayi (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• {{Checkuser needed}} can we get a check here? This does not seem like a new editor, and at least some of this is disruptive and evading scrutiny. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If my edits are not wanted that is fine. But this is my only account. I was Bezeq1. But I lost my password. That is why I create Bezeq2. I have said this. Also I read the policy and put in my edits. Only reason I am interested in topic is because I read the book. Bezeq2 (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RTFM may well apply. Requesting a check doesn't mean all of your edits are unwanted, but many of the principles of WP:SOCK have nothing to do with all (or even any) edits being disruptive in and of themselves (eg WP:SCRUTINY). Many of the subtleties of your behaviour do not add up, but apologies if I'm mistaken. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Inconclusive due to extensive use of proxies. ST47 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Isn't editing through proxies generally disallowed on Wikipedia without special permission? ♟♙ (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not technically; open proxies are allowed until blocked. See Wikipedia:Open proxies. A possibly relevant passage, though: When a Checkuser detects that an account has been using open proxies, this information may be considered when evaluating suspicions of sock puppetry or other editing abuses. If there is an appearance that an account has been using open proxies to circumvent policy, the account may be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

GeneralNotability - a new user, Red Maple Leaves, has removed the disputed content [6]. Wonder how they found the page. starship.paint (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I am a new user. Nice to meet you. I found the page by browsing, either by "random article" or where feedback was asked for. I reverted the content until a discussion has time to take place. It has been less than 24 hours. While there is no limit or minimum for these as I recently read, perhaps it may be a good idea for other viewpoints to be heard. I plan to vote for this content in the morning as I am about to head off to sleep. But I want to evaluate the material in full. I am new so forgive any errors or lack of speed. Thank you for getting in touch. :) Red Maple Leaves (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Try harder next time. starship.paint (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Try harder staying awake? Not sure what you mean. Have a good night. Red Maple Leaves (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Red Maple Leaves. I'm wide awake and am currently having my second cup of coffee for the day. I too have some concerns here. It seems like an odd coincidence that your account, which was created 84 minutes after GeneralNotability blocked three obvious sockpuppets, randomly found its way to a highly controversial article – either because the random page button miraculously presented you with that one, instead of one of our 6+ million other ones, or because you picked it out of a list of 16 open RfCs, which is something new users generally don't do. It also strikes me as odd that you chose to make your first substantial edits on said article after doing a bunch of gnoming tasks, with your second edit to the article being the partial reinstatement of a previous sock edit. I just cannot help but hear the characteristic noise of a certain avian species. Blablubbs|talk 12:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Red Maple Leaves is now blocked; three guesses why and the first two don't count. Article semi'd for a month. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Update: [7] This RFC has been removed pending review from the OS team, T&S, and Wikimedia Legal. If you are aware of the contents of this RFC, please do not re-add or otherwise discuss this matter until it has been resolved. starship.paint (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin help needed with taxonomy template

Please follow the following link and save the result as is:

this link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animal lover 666 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Animal lover 666, I'm not sure why I want to save a page as Template:Taxonomy/Edrioasteroidea/?/?/?. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Questionable assignment (two levels). Here we need 3 levels. Animal lover 666 (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666:  Done seems sane enough. Let me know if it works out. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. It did need one more bit of tweaking, but I did that myself. Animal lover 666 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sundayclose: bullying and threats of harassment: request for remedy

User:Sundayclose has been bullying me and has now threatened to harass me on one specific article (Immaculate conception). This is not an isolated incident for this user but is indicative of a general approach to other users on Wikipedia - see, e.g., here and here.

This began at the article Immaculate Conception when objected to the phrase "France saw" (as in saw an increase in the popularity of this idea), on the grounds that countries cannot see; I reverted, as the phrase seemed to me to reflect common usage. This was followed by an edit war, and I admit to being at fault in allowing myself to be drawn into this. The real problem is not this trivial matter, but the behavioural issue: to quote another editor who complained about a very similar incident, Sundayclose has "a habit of undoing what [they] [dis?]like and carpet bombing the offending user's talk page with a warning." This has been exactly my experience, culminating in a threat of future harassment on the article Immaculate Conception.

I will be very happy if I never come across this user again. In order to make this happen, I would like an interaction ban on both of us (neither to edit any page edited by the other), including a joint ban from editing Immaculate Conception.Achar Sva (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed your broken link. --JBL (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I really hoped it wouldn't come to this, but Sundayclose has left multiple users – including me – no choice here. All one needs to do is casually scan the last couple of months of his contributions page to see a user with massive WP:OWN problems. The pattern is immediately evident: he comes across an edit he doesn't agree with, immediately reverts and posts a warning to that user's talk page regardless of whether a warning is appropriate or not. Any further interaction then descends to an argument of "it's your responsibility to get consensus, per BRD"—regardless of which side of the BRD cycle he's on. I've had one interaction with the guy, but got a genuine stink of BRD misuse/filibustering. With his talk page on my watchlist for the past week, I've seen this user come into conflict with no less than six other editors, most of which were removed without response. And his latest interaction with an IP is a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

It's clear he is deliberately misinterpreting the content of several policies – pretty much everything linked in WP:5P4 – to suit his own needs as the situation dictates. If successful, this ANI may result in his first block, but I believe the behavioural issues here deserve a fairly lengthy block. User is clearly WP:NOTHERE, is argumentative, hostile and combative for no damn reason, and genuinely needs some time to reflect on how he interacts with other users. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I would like to offer my two cents to the discussion. Based on the evidence provided by Homeostasis07, I can agree that some of those behavioral problems may need to be looked at. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I've not followed the links to the interaction or behaviour at the heart of this thread, but I just want to weigh in on Sundayclose, generally. From my experience with them, going back several years, I have to disagree that their contribution can be reduced to WP:NOTHERE. Working on 1960s music articles as I do, I've seen Sdc tirelessly undoing dozens of nuisance edits – say, to Personnel sections at Beatles song articles, which are magnets for users either obsessively changing credits to what they personally hear/think or are otherwise out to be disruptive. Sdc's an absolute godsend on that front, as far as I'm concerned. I've seen them occasionally be a little to quick to revert, yes, but it's easily solved. I'm not out to negate the subject of this complaint (which, as I say, I haven't even looked into) or others' experience (which sounds very different from mine, obviously). But to imply that Sdc offers nothing but negative input – no way, that's absolutely not true. JG66 (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Achar Sva, instructions for creating a diff are at Help:Diff and there's a very handy script you can install at User:Enterprisey/diff-permalink.js that makes it dead easy, just click to copy. —valereee (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :) Achar Sva (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: Without having looked into the complaint, I would like to say that I've interacted with Sundayclose before and have found them to be an excellent contributor. The claim by Homeostasis07 that Sundayclose is WP:NOTHERE—meaning Sundayclose is only here to disrupt the project or make unhelpful edits—is obviously wrong and makes it hard for me to take anything else Homeostasis07 says seriously. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

My reference to NOTHERE was with respect to its "Treating editing as a battleground" and "Little or no interest in working collaboratively" points. I accept that he's been around for a long time and has made some valuable contributions to the project. And as an editor primarily of music articles myself for the past decade or so, I understand it can be frustrating when dealing with the constant barrage of genre-warriors, vandals, obsessive fans inflating sales figures/hyping-up critical consensus, other general nuisances and everything else, but somewhere along the way Sundayclose has developed a supremely uncollaborative attitude, even with genuine and well-meaning users. This is the aspect of his editing behaviour that has us all here. No one is out to "get" him, but he has developed some aggressive habits, and he needs to understand that he has to re-evaluate how he interacts with other users. (I don't add high-traffic pages like this to my watch-list, so please ping if responding to me specifically). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Tartan357 that WP:NOTHERE does not seem apposite, but otherwise Homeostatis07's description accords with my recent interaction with Sundayclose concerning Daniel Kleitman and Erdős–Bacon number; probably the best way to get a sense is to read this talk-page discussion (although it misses the lead-up exchanges that took place elsewhere). --JBL (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

And yet Achar Sva appears to be engaging in precisely the same activity for which he accuses Sundayclose. "a habit of undoing what [they] [dis?]like and carpet bombing the offending user's talk page with a warning." Check out my Talk page. In the space of eleven days, I made a half a dozen edits to Immaculate Conception. One was minor, one a revert, and most of the rest added sourced content, in some cases to correct what appeared to be a inaccurate paraphrase of the claimed source. In the same length of time, Achar Sva has also made six edits, each one removing or reverting content someone posted that he didn't happen to like, often with little or no explanation. (He himself has been subsequently reverted by yet another party, not herein named.) Still he accuses me of edit warring. Me thinks this is the pot yelling at the kettle. I note that on December 14th, he requested a ban that would keep him from editing this particular article. I heartily endorse that suggestion. Manannan67 (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: a third editor, Rafaelosornio, has now been tagged with an edit-warring billboard by Achar Sva. It seems that he has a problem with three separate editors. If you're accusing everyone else editing on that page of edit-warring, maybe it's not them. Manannan67 (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 4b of Antisemitism in Poland ("Volunteer Marek topic-banned") is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland

who's up for a rangeblock?

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

---

There's a really lame LTA case of this person who just keeps coming back again and again to change colors in climate box templates for cities in northwestern North America. It's super tedious. They are usually on a Shaw Communications IP in the area of Victoria, British Colombia. Latest one was User:2604:3d08:2c82:f400:4918:de4f:4a4f:2003. Anyone up for a range block? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox (talk • contribs) 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, blocked the Special:Contribs/2604:3d08:2c82:f400:4918:de4f:4a4f:2003/64, which has been doing the behavior you described for the past couple days. These IPs are part of Special:Contribs/2604:3d08:2c82:f400:4918:de4f:4a4f:2003/36, but I only see the disruption coming from this /64. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

PSA: WP:/64. —Cryptic 03:50, 19 December 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.

Maxim.il89

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.

---

• Maxim.il89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Evening all, can I get some assistance in talking down from a ledge. There has been a string of issues dating back over 12 months with the editors method of contributing at various articles. You can see his talk page is filled with regular intervals of warnings for edit warring and other issues, and more recently received a series of blocks. He has a particular issue with myself. He doesn't understand sourcing to reliable sources, performs a lot of OR and SYNTH, and any discussions generally break down to a point blank refusal to acknowledge other peoples points. I have tried to avoid being the one raising cases / complaints and have tried to involve other editors that have previously spoken to him, but as you can see he just blows past them and continues. Max is clearly passionate, but in 12 months has failed to understand the basics of wikipedia and his editing is both unintentionally disruptive, intentionally disruptive and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Koncorde (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Koncorde: it might be helpful to show admins diffs of like the worst three examples since the last block in October. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid him getting into another ban territory. He needs someone to talk to him, if his passion could be turned to being constructive it's clear he is motivated. Everything in the last week on Sunderland AFC Supporters? Edits started under a series of IP addresses (Max) then he logged in after I called him on it. Has then repeatedly inserted same unreliable sources to make claims not supported by source in any case, when challenged adds more unreliable sources and ignores reliable sources because he disagrees with them.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

Discussions boil down to him making unfounded assertions usually because he can't read sources properly even when he finds a reliable one. For example this edit here states "Sunderland's alternative name of the Black Cats is one which is known up and down the country, but it has only been the club's official nickname since 1997." - [15] which, to any reader, should be read as "the name Black Cats is known up and down the country" (article written in 2020, 20 years after nickname was adopted). Max infers the sentence to mean that the nickname was known for the prior century. To quote him "LITERALLY states how the name was known since before it was made official." which is not in the source (and is contradicted by other sources, including those he often provides otherwise).

Another editor [already fed back their own findings] which he, as he often does, just ghosted right past. Koncorde (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The full quote from that source is: "Sunderland's alternative name of the Black Cats is one which is known up and down the country, but it has only been the club's official nickname since 1997. Before then, they were known as the Rokerites, after their famous old Roker Park ground, but a move to the Stadium of Light meant a change was on the cards. But links between the city of Sunderland, the football club and black cats were nothing new - in fact they go back to the earliest days of the club's history." That clearly says it was Rokerites before 1997, Black Cats after 1997, though the connection to black cats (not the nickname "Black Cats") goes back to the earliest days of the club's history. I agree, Maxim.il89 arguing the source supports the opposite (and edit warring over it) is disruptive. Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've literally added a few links that show how this nickname has been around for a while, but this guy keeps deleting them. Here it is made clear that fans stuck with the traditional nickname. Here they talk of the long history of black cats, Sunderland, and how it's been around for a while. The links are there, alright.

There's a big difference between official nickname and new nickname, he based his whole thing on one link that erroneously called it a new nickname. The debate it literally over whether the word "new" should be in it. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And none of those sources support your assertion that it was a nickname. New, official, or otherwise. They just repeat other peoples apocryphal stories. One source, Primaru source, self promotion by Sunderland after the poll. The other a blog piece on a website that writes "articles" (usually cut and paste) to sell jerseys (just click the home button to see) and therefore not a reliable source. Koncorde (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit sick of User:Koncorde stalking me on my edits, I've complained about this before.

He quoted a text from the guardian that mistakenly stated that Sunderland picked a new nickname... it had never had an official nickname before that point, and the "new" nickname was, in fact, an old one. That has been proven with numerous links.

However, Koncorde seems to be edit warring for... I don't know, his ego? I've already complained about it before.

This is not a new nickname. Simple as that. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Continues the edit warring behaviour here and I think you can draw your own conclusions from his statement above what he thinks the issue is vs what the actual is.

The source he accuses of being "mistaken" is this "Sunderland find new identity as The Black Cats". You can take it as a mistake that the club didn't officially have a nickname prior to 2000, and if we want to say the club adopted an "official" nickname in 2000 rather than "new" then we are onto semantics of just when a nickname never used officially by a club becomes a "new" nickname. Koncorde (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, first, you both need to stop edit warring immediately or you will both wind up blocked. I don't want to wade into a content dispute, but it looks to me like the core of the disagreement is what constitutes "new" here. Maxim.il has shown, with a link to the club's official website, that the nickname "goes back almost 200 years but it was only recently that the name was adopted by the football club." So, yeah, it seems to be an argument about "new" that you both need to talk about instead of reverting each other. If you can't come to an agreement (through discussion) on how to characterize the source, you need to use dispute resolution, but content issues are not resolved by administrators. What will be dealt with is continued reversion, and I would rather not block you. So please talk it out or ask at WP:DRN or WP:3O for someone to help you come to a compromise. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That source does not say anything of the kind. It says the association with "black cats" goes back (and their are a variety of origin stories). However that is not in dispute (although the origin is). Reliable sources say otherwise regarding the nickname, including the source you pointed at which specifically omits Black Cats when talking about nicknames for the club when at Roker Park.

You can pretend this is an argument of equal merits, but it isn't. This is about a disruptive editor who has been repeatedly blocked for exactly this behaviour, and when asked to prove his point through reliable sources is unable to do so. Koncorde (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And to make clear: I am asking an Admin to HELP explain to this user the basic building blocks of wikipedia. Does his edit history look like he plays well with others? Do you think content disputes go down well with him? Does his talk page reflect someone able to edit in a neutral way? Multiple Administrators were involved last time to try and help. I am looking for that help again because a 3rd opinion does not work as demonstrated at a prior RFC [16] and at the talk page in question.[17].

I am happy to jump through hoops, but that won't change the users attitude or approach and we will be at one of the Admin boards again in the future. Koncorde (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence "The link between Sunderland and the Black Cats goes back almost 200 years but it was only recently that the name was adopted by the football club" says the link goes back almost 200 years, but the name was adopted "only recently." I don't see how that sentence permits any other reading? Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:37, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I really don't want to wade into interpreting content. As someone who has absolutely no interest in association football, I read that sentence and the meaning I got was that they were referred to as the Black Cats before the "official" adoption. Yeah, there's a "link" but in the context of names, what else could that "link" be? The image? We're going to pretend that an image fo a black cat could be used to represent a team for 200 years without anyone thinking to try metonymy? Is it the best source? obviously not. Does it make me think that the characterization as "new" is perfect? Also no. It seems like a facially plausible reading that suggests the article text can be improved (rather than just reverted back and forth), so I'm not willing to just block and move on. This needs actual dispute resolution from someone who wants to look into the sources and offer an opinion on what the proper reading and characterization of sources is. I'm not that person, and we have processes for it that don't require admin intervention. I'll look into the general behavioral issue, but this particular dispute at sunderland AFC supporters looks like a disagreement on source characterization that I really can't help with. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't want this complaint to be about the content in the first place It's the WP:BATTLEGROUND to every change. It's about mis-using sources, the edit summaries, the lack of good faith editing (as seen by his summaries above, and responses to him on his talk page have [pointedly asked him to help himself] by ceasing with conspiracy theories) and despite his claims this is not about the word "new" because he repeatedly introduces other OR and SYNTH with his edits from unreliable sources.

For the record, I have looked at the 7 or 8 encyclopaedias and historical books that both cover the entire 20th Century season by season, or every team, or particular eras', and have found 0 reference, I have searched every published book via google books, I have searched all sourced and cited articles anywhere on the internet, and all I can find is that someone started a publishing company called "Black Cat Publishing" to publish Sunderland annuals and some vague references to some artwork being created. If I could find ANY source to back the claim up I would happily include it. However the use of animals etc on club badges is also well known in sport but in the UK they are no guarantee of a nickname; for example Tottenham Hotspur F.C. has a cockerel on their badge and they have never been known as anything bird related, Chelsea F.C. has a lion but never nicknamed for it, Liverpool F.C. are associated with the Liver Birds but they have never been nicknamed as such. Any RS clearly states 3 or 4 alternative nicknames for the club, or the collective group of players. Black Cats has never come up (and, for personal anecdote, in my 34 of 40 years following football I have never seen nor read it prior to the official adoption in any national newspaper or media - so if it exists it will be in local press, club publications, or fan publications which nobody has produced). Koncorde (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears the other user is using original research and non-RS to promote a niche POV. To add to the above, Ipswich have had a horse on their badge for decades (a Suffolk Punch no less) but have never had any equine-related nicknames, official or otherwise. This aggressive edit warring needs to be stopped at the source. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And that's why, no one references to Ipswich as "the horses" or whatever. Sunderland HAVE been referred to as the black cats for a long time. Before it was made official, it wasn't common... but it was used. That is a point! Just because something wasn't as common doesn't make it "new" when it becomes common. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

What kind of spurs?
Bird-related.

Koncorde, I don't know anything about football but Tottenham Hotspur F.C. has a cockerel on their badge and they have never been known as anything bird related is an ironic claim. The cockerel (with its prominent gamecock spurs) on the badge was chosen in punning reference to the "spurs" name. (No comment on anything else in this discussion.) GPinkerton (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wugapodes is correct that the edit-warring needs to stop. I also have no desire to wade into the details of what seems to be fairly silly content dispute. With regard to the underlying behavioral concerns raised by the OP, here are four threads (three of them within the past four months) in which Maxim.il89 demonstrated general cluelessness about how to behave on Wikipedia ([18], [19], [20], [21]). My experience with Maxim is that he has a rotten attitude and is quick to pick fights rather than engaging in collaborative discussion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these, they certainly do not show growth or a willingness to take feedback on board despite multiple chances. @EdJohnston: You seem to have been involved in a number of these reports, do you have any opinions on this? Based on what Lepricavark's linked to and the current disruption I'm inclined to block for an extended period per WP:NOTCOMPAT but wanted to get your opinion on what's left to be tried. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

As a last chance, I proposed at User talk:Maxim.il89 that they agree to accept the phrase 'new nickname'. Otherwise I agree it is time for a long block. People seem to agree that sources for any prior use of 'black cats' as a club nickname are too weak to rely on. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's see how that goes, but from the discussion above with Levivich and Koncord I may block regardless. Compromising on a wording may resolve the immediate problem but likely won't prevent further battleground conduct. Liz and Ritchie tried in October to get Maxim.il to change course and it didn't work. While it seems harsh, I think an indef gives Maxim.il more options on coming back to the community when they're ready. Since it forces an unblock request, we'll prevent further battleground conduct until they can demonstrate understanding and a commitment to change. Forcing an unblock request also gives admins the ability to negotiate topic-bans as a conditional unblock so that we can try to prevent disruption even after lifting the block. Since it would be a unilateral admin action, those options are also lightweight since they don't require community discussinos at every stage. I'll give Maxim.il a few hours to see this and respond but that's where my thinking's at after the above discussion. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that an indef block is a reasonable choice if there is no response within a few hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, "new nickname" is definitely unsuitable because it's misleading and contradicts how its been used for so long.

Koncorde did a new formulation: "In 2000 a public vote was held for supporters to choose the first ever official nickname for the club from five options picked by the club. The overwhelming number of respondents supported the nickname of 'The Black Cats'." - and I think this formulation is great.

The word "new" is misleading and contradicts the fact this nickname has been used before, even if not so commonly. Now, the fact that it was made official in 2000, that is obviously relevant information.

I think User talk:Wugapodes got the situation accurately in the first reply.

About my "edit warring"... besides the fact I wasn't the only one doing it, if you pay attention, in my "reverts" I often tried to add new links or references in an attempt to... correct, improve the formulation to look suitable. Also, I always go to the talk page, because I am willing to talk about things, that's obvious. Maxim.il89 (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for sarcastic quotes around edit warring and reverts. Both of those terms are accurate portrayals of your edits. The dispute with the wording can and should be resolved on the article talk page. The deeper problem is your repeated hostility, as demonstrated in this edit summary, which is one long ad hominem That's just not how we do things around here. You can either adjust your behavior to comply with community norms or you will be blocked. In the light of the comments above from two admins who are fully prepared to indefinitely block you, your latest response is a pretty blatant failure to read the room. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Make that three admins prepared to indefinitely block Maxim.il89. Would anyone seeing more like that last diff please let me know. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Still removing "new". Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:19, 19 December 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.

Russian Academy of Natural Sciences

• Russian Academy of Natural Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It might be good to have more eyes on this, given the potentially controversial nature of the content under discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Suspicious Activities - December 2020

The last two weeks I'm trying to edit two articles and on both my sources were discredited, deleted, disputed by same two editors Jingiby and StoyanStoyanov80. First article is Bitola Inscription, second article is Drama Uprising. In order to discredit my sources and win a better position on the talk page, in both situations I've noticed suspicious activity by both of them - that is creating or editing an separate articles on which they call out in these two talk pages (Bitola Inscription and Drama Uprising),in order to discredit an author and to misrepresent my country (Macedonia) past, as communist country and regime of highest forms. So, in order to win a dispute on talk page on Bitola Inscription, the user Jingiby created this article: Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour, trying to misrepresent my country as some communist regime dictatorship that didn't allow the citizens to declare their nationality, in order to win a position and push his POV in this article and talk page about Bitola Inscription. When I prove him wrong and when I point out about these activities to one admin on the Drama uprising talk page, he (Jingiby) deleted the part of the talk page on Bitola Inscription and all of a sudden agreed to change the article that he was defending for several days without any consensus or whatsoever. The deleted part was called "Pande Eftimov" (please check the history of the Talk page). On the second article about Drama Uprising, similar/same thing happened with the user StoyanStoyanov80, he calls out for this article to discredit the author Andrew Rossos, but when I saw the editorial history of Andrew Rossos article, I run on their two names Jingiby and StoyanStoyanov80 - edits done the previous two weeks, in order to win out better position on the Talk page on Drama Uprising, in order to delete my sources and push their POV. I don't know how their editing patterns are called or whether they are allowed (which I highly doubt that they are allowed), therefore I ask for Admins help to explain me whether I'm victim of editors suspicious behavior and where should I report them or is it enough that I created this Talk topic and Admin will take care of the rest? Thank you. --Forbidden History (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden History, For starters, you ignored the big red letters that tell people to notify those they open cases against. I have done so on your behalf.

Jingiby's edits here are very reasonable and Jingiby has been very helpful to you, yet you seem to be ignoring their sage advice. I have no idea what you mean by "suspicious", but just because somebody disagrees with you/is trying to help you does not make them in the wrong. Unless you provide some more WP:DIFFS that show clearly what the wrong behavior is, it seems there is no issue here.

You are editing in a very contentious topic area, which requires that you be on your very best behavior. That means using the top quality sources, and getting along with others. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe I have done anything wrong, the admin can decide on that. Just want to point out that this is not the first time that Forbidden History has reported me to the admins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=991902217#User:StoyanStoyanov80_reported_by_User:Forbidden_History_(Result:_No_violation)

--StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

StoyanStoyanov80 was reported there, you involved to back him up.--Forbidden History (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

You deleted a part in which you call out an article that you have created few days ago, in order to back yourself up for the article at Bitola Inscription.

Forbidden History this is the third time that you have done this, please don't post your comment inside of my comment. Thank you. --StoyanStoyanov80 (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I am sorry if I have affected the User Forbidden History in any way. Otherwise, I understand what he wants to say here, but it sounds more like some kind of conspiracy theory. Jingiby (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, thanks for the reply, I apologize that I did the things without paying proper attention. My aim initially was to get Admins opinion about the problem. I put this as Admin Help on my talk page, but no one replied, therefore I copied and paste the text here. I don't see in which way Jingiby helped me, when he created and edit an articles in order to win a better position at other articles in which he discredits my sources, insults an independent country historiography. I provided my links above about the problem. Please read my problem and let me know if that is Disruptive editing and is it allowed to create new articles or edit existing ones in order to back himself up (stands and views) on Talk pages on some other articles? Is that normal thing and allowed? I'm new at wikipedia and I'm not sure how to provide DIFFS (I provided links to the article pages and to the talk pages, where this problems occured. Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden History, I fail to see how Jingiby is insulting Macedonia, also that you think that tells me you have some very strong opinions about this topic. Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour needs some more work, but it seems neutral enough; the communist era in the East was a dark time and many terrible things happened, and thankfully that era is over. Your insinuation that Jingiby created it to try to win a dispute on another page is silly, and I'm not sure how that would even be possible. To use diffs, please read the link I gave you that specifically explains how. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek I cannot provide the diffs properly. So, I will try with the links once again.

First article is this one. In order for him to discredit my sources (printed in 1991 and 1995-which has nothing to do with communism) and to change the nationality of a Macedonian person into Bulgarian, he created this article. After that on the Talk Page, he pointed out this newly created article in order to convince someone that Bulgarians were repressed in Macedonia and they were not allowed to declare their nationality-I proved him wrong by sending him official census results. Here is an older version of the Talk Page on which you can see the discussion about that person (Pande Eftimov).

In mean time I was working on another article called Drama Uprising. On that article, similar thing was done by StoyanStoyanov80. Him and Jingiby, edited the past days the article of Andrew Rossos, so on the Talk Page of Drama Uprising, the user StoyanStoyanov80, is discrediting this professor work, in order to delete my quotes from Drama Uprising. On that same Talk page Jingiby classified the Macedonian History as pseudo-science (that is insult to all Academics and Professors of my country). When I point this suspicious editing to the Admin that is watching over the article about Drama Uprising, Jingiby immediately deleted the part from the Bitola Inscription-Talk Page and changed the article (something that he was not willing to do past several days) - that puts suspicion that he was trying to hide his disruptive edits done to make him "win" the Talk pages on Bitola Inscription and Drama Uprising, in order to discredit my sources and present the Macedonians as Bulgarians. I hope you'd get my point now. Thanks --Forbidden History (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Forbidden History, I think you ascribe more to Jingiby's actions than there is. I see nothing sinister here, merely a difference of opinion. I suggest you seek formal dispute resolution for the issues you are facing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I assume that you have checked my concerns about their editing patterns (that is creating or editing existing article, which you will use it to back up your statements on separate Talk Pages/Articles if dispute appears)? If yes, thank you for your devoted time and I apologize if my expressed concern is unsupported. But, someone that busy as Jingiby is, creates an article and the next day he uses that article (on another Talk page, where there is an ongoing dispute) to misrepresent that my country was not allowing people to declare themselves as Bulgarians and that is why they declared themselves as Macedonians - it is far beyond suspicious. But, as I said, if you judged so, I will respect your opinion and end the dispute here. Thank you for your time and involvement in this dispute.--Forbidden History (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Long WP:RFPP backlog

Hi admins there is a huge backlog of around 30 articles that are in queue for protection request. Thank you. 2402:3A80:111B:5BCE:3901:30B5:7628:7665 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The list includes Narendra Modi, prime minister of India, and his political party Bharatiya Janata Party where vandalism is taking place by moving the pages to vague names. To note it looks their protection has expired but showing {{pp-vandalism}} 42.110.220.55 (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@SQL, GeneralNotability, JJMC89, GorillaWarfare, ST47, Stwalkerster, and Oshwah: 42.110.220.55 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Asking admins to do admin things is totally reasonable. Assume good faith guys. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there a reason that you pinged a bunch of checkusers and SPI clerks? SQLQuery me! 19:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC) When in doubt, make it someone else's problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC) Yes someone tagging admins when raising a problem that can only be dealt with by admins deserves to have their motives questioned (!) DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Admin control over fota

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.

---

What's is violating the apache attribution creative commons liscense.. Or mdm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5000:B64:5CF9:7141:ED6A:4C24 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand what is being said. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 15 December 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.

want to remove IP address from history

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.

---

accidentally left edited a page with my IP visible. please help to remove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freeeditor11 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Please email oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org with either the IP or a link to the change where your IP was exposed, and we can hide it for you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, looking at your contributions history I think I was able to figure out where it happened. If you're not referring to the edits to Bhai Mardana, please email the address above and let us know. If you were, then you're all set. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock request by The Image Editor

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 Image Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Image Editor was blocked indefinitely on November 16 for persistent disruptive editing. The reason for their block was repeated edit warring over lead images, including replacing some with copyrighted files that they'd uploaded to Commons with incorrect/insufficient licensing, attribution, and/or source information. Most of their edit history has consisted of changing lead images. The block was imposed by Oshwah as the result of a unanimous consensus reached in this discussion I started at WP:ANI. The consensus was clear for some sort of sanction, though nothing specific was decided upon. The Image Editor is now requesting that their block be lifted, and has acknowledged the reasons for their block. I believe that they have served their time and are genuinely interested in contributing constructively, so I am endorsing their request and starting this discussion on their behalf. I do so without prejudice towards a topic ban on changing lead images. Please discuss The Image Editor's request with them at User talk:The Image Editor#WP:AN discussion of unblock request. Pinging participants in ANI discussion: Sundayclose, GoodDay, HeartGlow30797, Sphilbrick, Johnbod, Laser brain, Beyond My Ken. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 15:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

• If he's promised to behave, then by all means 'unblock'. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Tartan357, I'm not opposed. S Philbrick(Talk) 22:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• I've thought about it, and I guess I have no opinion one way or the other, as long as The Image Editor understands that if they're unblocked, and they return to their previous behavior, the indef that is likely to follow will be a lot more difficult to have lifted -- so walking the straight-and-narrow path is their best choice if they want to continue editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Is merging two accounts possible?

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

---

Hi. I had an alternative account that I requested to get blocked a long time ago. Is it possible to merge it with my account? I mean merging my alt's contributions with this one? --Wario-Man (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wario-Man: No, sorry. Majavah (talk!) 05:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ahhh... I saw it: Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts. Sorry for opening this section before reading the policy. Cheers! --Wario-Man (talk) 05:39, 21 December 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.

Bloody Christmas (1945)

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.

---

• Bloody Christmas (1945) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anyone familiar with Bulgarian and Macedonian relations and history, or anyone who can read Bulgarian, might take a look at the ongoing dispute on this article. It seems likely that this is an ethnic/nationalistic disagreement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

1 week semi to prevent edit-warring, maybe that'll get the IPs to go to talk —valereee (talk) 21:44, 21 December 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.

Rename

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 and do not be bored. Dear managers, I have registered a request for a change of name. When will it be processed?--Pmand ^{(talk • Contributions)} 00:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

You say "our username". Can you explain who that is? Natureium (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I meant my username I asked a question to change my username.--Pmand ^{(talk • Contributions)} 02:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

محمد پورمند, this isn't actually something this forum can help with. The volunteers at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple are doing their best. —valereee (talk) 02:34, 23 December 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.

Blocked?

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

---

I attempted to create an account only to find my IP has been blocked from doing so by ohnoitsjamie for disruptive editing???

I have never tried to create a wikipedia account before so I don't know what this is about.

I'd like to create an account. How can I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:BF14:3F2:2D72:413C:1E63:8F4D (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request an account, though the range block is for a WP:LTA. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, it's nothing you specifically did, you just got caught up in a range of IPs that were causing trouble. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Strange. Why would a partially blocked IP range prevent registration? M.Bitton (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie selected "block account creation" when the block was put into place. As I'm not sure if that was intentional, I'm not going to overturn it. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't intend to block account creation, just partial block for certain pages. Apologies for the inconvenience. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries, block updated. IP, if you're kicking about, you should be good to go. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. Thank you for the explanation. M.Bitton (talk) 01:41, 24 December 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.

Can you restore this page that I made a XFD for, but I need it temporarily restored so I can merge it with another article?

• Hog Fire
  

I need to use this page's information so I can put it on Draft:2020 Lassen County, California wildfires, but I made an XFD for Hog Fire days ago, and it was successful, but I need it not indefinitely, but temporary until I request it to be deleted again. Thanks --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always ping me when replying) 14:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@LightningComplexFire: Per our licence terms, if you're copying/merging content from one article to another it shouldn't be deleted. I mean technically it could be if you copy the contributor list but that's generally not the right way to handle things when there's no reason why the article must be deleted. (See WP:Copying within Wikipedia. The article can be moved to a subpage or somewhere else. Although I'm somewhat confused why Hog Fire won't be a redirect if some of that content is going somewhere else. If it is eventually going to be a redirect then it'll probably be best to move it also to draft and then move it back and turn it into a redirect when you turn the move the other draft to main space. P.S. I'm assuming the content you're planning to copy/merge isn't exclusively your own work. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

LightningComplexFire, Are you ready to move 2020 Lassen wildfires to mainspace? I know its barebones but you can keep working on it there. If so, I can just restore Hog Fire's history and make it a redirect. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I am not done with my draft, but the article got deleted before I even had the idea to make the draft. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always ping me when replying) 18:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Restored and moved to Draft:Hog Fire. @LightningComplexFire: When your target draft is done, you can redirect the Hog Fire draft there, and move it back to mainspace as a redirect. The edit history will be preserved that way. BD2412 T 18:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: I'm now done with the article. Only the Loyalton Fire should have its own seperate article, all the others can be redirects --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always ping me when replying) 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

And Gold Fire (2020) should be a redirect --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 (always ping me when replying) 17:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirected where? 2020 Lassen County, California wildfires is a red link because Draft:2020 Lassen County, California wildfires is still a draft. BD2412 T 18:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 01 January 2021:

• Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bradv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CaptainEek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maxim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2020:

• DGG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joe Roe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mkdw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:

  Oversight: Joe Roe

• Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected case(s).
• All outgoing arbitrators will remain subscribed to the functionaries' mailing list
• DGG, Joe Roe, and Mkdw will be unsubscribed from the arbitration clerks' mailing list at their request.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 Arbitration Committee

RPP

Is there actually any point requesting page protection for BLPs? It seems like a waste of time in my experience. DuncanHill (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I've done it a number of times. It's useful when some idea gets going on twitter and multiple IP/new editors start all trying to insert the same nonsense (like right now with Alexander Myres which I just requested protection for). Schazjmd (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, in what way is it a waste of time? That it doesn't happen fast enough, or doesn't fix the problem or what? —valereee (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that DuncanHill was frustrated that he requested page protection at Xisco (footballer, born 1980) yesterday at 19:45, the disruption continued, and the page wasn't protected until 00:09 this morning. What can I say DH - there is a limited number of admins, we're all volunteers, yada yada. I'm guessing you know the way to WP:RfA, if you want to offer to help out with the backlogs. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If there is ongoing intensive disruption (such as rapidly reverted and restored vandalism) it makes sense to ask some of recently active admins at their talk page.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, there was a load of disruption, I can see why DH was frustrated, and I have no objection to pinging or directly contacting active admins to ask for a speedy response. I'm just saying that complaining about the whole process isn't really helpful - if he was going to go to the effort of posting here, something along the lines of 'Xisco (footballer, born 1980) is getting hammered by IPs, I've posted at RfPP but could someone protect urgently?' would probably have been more useful. DH, if you see something like that again and I'm active at the time, feel free to ping me. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah whatever. See the thread above for the response to raising a backlog and pinging admins. Seriously - if the way to get a BLP protected is to post here rather than at RPP then we should say so in bloody big red letters at the top of RPP. DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I think what happens is that admins have different places they patrol and have some expertise. A month or so ago, I was asked to enforce a complaint at ANEW but the admins who frequent that board have a better sense of evaluating reverts and what an appropriate sanction is for them than I would, going in for the first time. So, there are some admins (could be just a handful) who patrol RPP and if they are otherwise occupied, things can back up. But more admins have AN & ANI on their Watchlists so a post here is more likely to get some attention which is appropriate if it is an urgent situation. But if you started to regularly post all protection requests to this noticeboard as an alternative to RPP, you'd get a lot of pushback pretty quickly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that it's a busy time of year, so admins get tied up with holiday stuff. I like to patrol RfPP but have been busy with other things the last few weeks, and I noticed some other familiar faces absent from my watchlist so I think it's a short-lived trend. I hope to get back there soon, but if anyone wants a primer on how to handle RfPP requests, MelanieN has done a wonderful job documenting her workflow at User:MelanieN/Page protection. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill, I'd echo the advice about anything of an urgent nature of a BLP. Most reports to RfPP aren't urgent and can wait a few hours, but for a BLP no one reasonable is going to object to a post here also, about a clearly urgent issue, as redundant. —valereee (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

block request for user:31.133.58.54

User has continued to harrass user:susmuffin. Is unlikely to stop without intervention. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 02:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The IP has been proxy-blocked for 6 months. Mz7 (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Christine Fang

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.

---

• Christine Fang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• WP:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang

A BLP, Christine Fang is attracting a lot of POV editing. More eyes are needed there and on its talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 10:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I second this given the amount of attention the page has been receiving over the past couple of days. That said, admins might be interested to note the filing editor himself has edit warred on the page despite my informing him that what he was doing was in violation of BRD [22] and he's made the less-than-good-faith accusations against me [23] that I might be guilty of WP:OWNERSHIP, WP:POV warrior, and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: Forevertruthsayer is one of many socks of Waskerton. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked out the AfD and found a number of sockpuppets there. ST47 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

What essay states that we should be suspicious of editors who have TRUTH in their username? I swear we just had another Truth account last week that was blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:OWB #72. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The other Truth account blocked last week was OnlyTruthShallPrevail. Watch out for the Truths. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 22 December 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.

"Section edit"ing is behaving in a buggy manner, at least for me

So whenever I try to edit a section, the editor glitches out really badly, and whenever I try to reload the page, it logs me out.

This only happens when I try to edit a section.

Can somebody please explain what is happening? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

It works for me. Try to restart the computer. Does it glitch if you are logged out? Does it happen in safemode? Does it happen at meta:Help Forum? What is your browser? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter - I use an iPad to edit Wikipedia. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have just tried, and it is randomly working again. Thanks regardless. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

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

---

User:Ekdalian doing Vandalism in Vaidyabrahmin page.I'm requesting administrators to take step Against this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.SunBD (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 December 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.

Request to have my test account blocked

Hello. Can somebody block my test account for an hour? We seem to be having an issue, documented at ANI and VPT, where the iOS app for Wikipedia can’t seem to notify a user about messages they receive on their talk page. Consequently this user does not seem to be aware of talk pages existing and are unable to discuss with other editors. I want to see how block messages display on the iOS app to see if there’s another way to get in contact with them. I can’t use email because they don’t have one set up. Thank you! GMXping! 03:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Kinu ^t/_c 03:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Multiple failed logins

I got a notice about multiple failed logins to my account with a new device. Is there a way to find out where these attempts to break into my account came from? Are IPs which make these attempts automatically blocked? (If not, they should be.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think finding that information out is a thing. Possibly, those attempts get throttled after a while...? I dunno. I get this notice once every few months. Best thing to do is just ignore it and move on. El_C 02:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, I get these notices all of the time, probably 3 or 4 times a month. If it is a solitary attempt to log in, the email message should give you the IP account. If it is "multiple attempts", then the message typically doesn't. And, for me, they aren't always trying to log in from the English Wikipedia, sometimes it is from the Spanish Wikipedia or Mediawiki or other projects. I might be targeted because I have a short username. I always think that if I'm getting sent these messages, then the system is working. If the someone managed to access my user account and switch it to a different email account that they controlled, I wouldn't be getting the messages at all. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good thing that the system is working to protect me, but it's odd that an IP would be identified for a single failed log-in, but not the IP(s) responsible for multiple failed log-ins. I wonder what the rationale for that is? In any case, my feeling is that if someone is trying to break in to my account, it's not far-fetched to think that they would do so for someone else's account, perhaps someone whose password is not as secure -- and then they're in, free to damage the encyclopedia. That's why I feel that any failed log-in should be followed-up with a message to the account holder asking "Was this you?", and if the answer is no, the IPs involved should be blocked for a reasonable period of time, not only from editing, but from attempting to sign-in. That, to my mind, would provide an additional amount of security, and perhaps prevent some accounts from being harassed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be dependent on having an email account attached to 100% of registered accounts, and a mandatory requirement that all accounts receive "system" emails. Not seeing that as a likely occurrence, given the current privacy policy. Risker (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I was think more an on-wiki message & response, as opposed to e-mail. If e-mail was required to have such a feature, then I see nothing wrong with saying "We have this increased security feature available, but you need a confirmed e-mail address to use it," just as you have to have one to use the Wikipedia e-mail feature. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I could see that being used for a Denial of service attack if there wasn't a human in the loop. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki does actually have a throttle, which walks this balance between unlimited attempts and DoS. It was hopefully reviewed last year (IIRC) after some of us were getting tens of thousands of login attempts at a time. If you're only getting a few, just review your password security then ignore it. And by the way, I believe there's already a bug report somewhere requesting that the IP is shown. Unfortunately I don't know its status, but WP:VPT is probably the place to ask about it and filing any future feature requests. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Liz is a common name. Login attempts are probably from people who think they may have created an account by that name. wikiquote:User:Liz~enwikiquote, de:User:Liz~dewiki, als:Liz (usurped), mw:Liz (usurped)~mediawikiwiki and maybe others actually did create that account name before being renamed due to usurpation or single unified login. mw:Liz (usurped)~mediawikiwiki was renamed twice, first from "Liz" to "Liz (usurped)" and then to "Liz (usurped)~mediawikiwiki" when als:Liz (usurped) got the unified login. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Login attempts are probably from people who think they may have created an account by that name. As ridiculous as this may initially sound, this seems a sensible assumption. My bank account login regularly gets locked by people logging in with their first name, thinking that's their banking login (when it's actually mine). Results in many painful trips to a bank branch to reset the login password, even though I never failed any login attempts. Never set a common name as a username. And yes, I need a better bank. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I'm a usurped account. Otherwise a 3 letter username would probably be a sign that I created this account in 2002...which is not the case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

A better bank, and a bigger boat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Email abuse

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 should already know this. I'm angry right now and tired and judgment impaired. Also, in my many tears here, have not received such emails till now. Can/should I forward them to ArbCom? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't wish to engage the editor directly so as not to further the abuse. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Yes, forward to Arbcom. There is also WP:EMERGENCY if relevant. Also, I don't know what hours Arbcom keeps over Christmas, but if you want to forward to a functionary I will be online for a while. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I will. The user apparently posted the same attack on a Wikipedia page and are no longer editing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, not Jewish. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I know the user you mean, and I suspect they will abuse the UTRS system soon too. Agent00x (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Unless they show some maturity, I will ask that they be banned there. They cannot email me anymore. Maybe they'll email the blocking admin. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I am just a plain vanilla administrator, but if you are getting harassed, I will do whatever I can. I willl be checking in over the next couple of hours. Just reach out by email or my talk page. Having dinner now and then will be back. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Thanks. I think they are sorted, but good. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:41, 25 December 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.

Help needed with complex move situation

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.

---

Ashfaq nezamani moved Hina Altaf to Book:Jjlkhh for unexplained reasons, after which it was moved again to Hina Aagha by IdreamofJeanie against WP:COMMONNAME. Normally, I would have just undone this and asked the editors involved to discuss per WP:BRD, but due to the situation created by the double-move, this is no longer possible.

Could an admin please restore the page to its original location, after which any issues with the title can be discussed in an RM? Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Aah, sorry, I moved it to the name given in bold at beginninvg of the article, i hadn't noted that it was different to the previous title, sorry. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, also protected for three months.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both, Ymblanter for the quick action here, and IdreamofJeanie for handling the initial vandalism. Much appreciated. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

And can we also fix the talk pages? Talk:Hina_Altaf incorrectly has {{Talk page of a redirect}} and Talk:Hina Aagha has the real talk page content and history. Chris857 (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done, apparently I have not noticed the warning while moving the page--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 24 December 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.

Sockpuppetry

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 friends. User:Luckie Luke Sockpuppetry is a user of User:Modern Sciences. If you look at the Persian Wikipedia, https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/کاربر:Luckie_Luke , Luckie Luke has introduced himself as Lulu's Sockpuppetry. This is an illegal account because User:Modern Sciences is blocked.--Kurdsikən (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Unblock request from Kolya Butternut

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.

---

Copied over from their talk at their request —valereee (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I am appealing the block[24] which I received from Seraphimblade for "violating an arbitration decision" (a one-way IBAN). The block was given after I made the following post on my talk page:

Seraphimblade, are you willing to discuss this?

[25]

What I hoped to discuss was an email which I had sent to admin Sandstein which they had posted on my talk page.[26] I wanted to ask Seriphimblade if what I inferred that Sandstein meant in the email was true: that I am only permitted to discuss replacement of my IBAN with the blocking administrator. I wanted to ask Seriphimblade questions about 1-way IBANS which are unclear under WP:BANEX, specifically, how would I make a new report within the scope of my IBAN?

As for the email to Sandstein itself, I was surprised it was posted on my talk page as I felt it was clearly intended to be confidential, but I should have made that clear to Sandstein. Regardless, discussing the case through email was specifically permitted by Seraphimblade. Following my IBAN I had previously asked him, "Is discussion through Wikipedia email ok?" and "Am I permitted to neutrally ask an uninvolved party to investigate the case?",[27] to which he replied, "I can't realistically stop you from emailing anyone you want to. I suppose you can ask anyone you want to 'investigate' the case...."[28]

I believe both my email and talk page post were exceptions under WP:BANEX because I was "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, e.g. addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." Email was specifically identified as an appropriate forum to ask someone to "investigate" the case.

I should have made it more clear to Seraphimblade what specifically I was asking and how I felt that was an exception under BANEX, but I was caught quite by surprise by the email post, and I thought the appropriate thing to do was to notify Seraphimblade and first just ask him if he was willing to discuss anything about this. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bad block, overturn per the last time this exact thing happened. Inquiring about clarifications and appeals of a ban are explicitly allowed by WP:BANEX, and furthermore, KB was specifically directed to make this inquiry by another administrator, and doing what was suggested by a person with authority got them a block in place of any kind of constructive response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  From discussion on KB's talk page, it appears that Seraphimblade blocked because they assumed that KB was discussing an editor via emails with Sandstein in violation of their interaction ban. I have to assume that had Sandstein, an active AE admin, viewed the emails as a violation of the iban that they would have blocked themselves, rather than post an excerpt of the message and refer it off to someone else. KB has a recent history of harassment and other poor behaviour which seems to have rightly earned them a sanction, but I'm really struggling to see how any of this should earn a block. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair, it seems this is a continuation of User_talk:Kolya_Butternut#Appeal_argument, particularly (from Liz): an appeal should demonstrate that the I-Ban is no longer necessary, that you no longer are monitoring SPECIFICO's behavior and are no longer bringing complaints against them, it is not an invitation to relitigate your AE complaint to show how you were right. Your detailing problems with SPECIFICO's behavior is a violation of your I-Ban and you are lucky that Seraphimblade issued a warning instead of a block. You need to stop discussing SPECIFICO in every space of Wikipedia including your own talk page. and pinging Seraphimblade after Special:Diff/987917192/987933412 seems like a bad idea. Still, I generally expect emails to be a confidential form of communication / seeking advice and, notwithstanding Sandstein's email disclaimer, would not expect editors to be sanctioned for someone reproducing the contents onwiki. It kinda defeats the point if you're trying to get advice on a way forward without starting drama when you genuinely feel stuck and don't know what to do. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  However, 1 way IBANs, especially if interpreted to prohibit discussion on turning it into a 2 way IBAN, seem kinda strange. I mean, if the other editor starts aggravating you, and either nobody else notices or cares enough, are you meant to do absolutely nothing about it because if you say anything it's a block? What are the methods of recourse for an editor with a 1 way IBAN? Presumably they can't go to ANI either, can't discuss anywhere onwiki, and (if this is upheld) can't discuss offwiki either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

After the very negative reaction I received from Kolya Butternut for my general advice (that I'd give to any editor with an IBan), I think I'll stay clear of weighing in here, either for or against this block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Bad block The background seems to be that KB requested Draft:Public image of Donald Trump be restored so they could work on it, and SPECIFICO then jumped in to make edits on that page as well. KB abandoned editing that page (in favor of User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump) to avoid IBAN issues and seems to want to get back to the draft. It's a Catch-22 to expect them to ask how to do so without inadvertently violating the ban. Sandstein said he needed to discuss with Seraphimblade, who immediately blocked KB for asking "are you willing to discuss this". There's some excess heat from KB regarding discussion of the IBAN, but I don't see anything actionable here to block. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad block, overturn, and adjust the IBAN due to Specifico following KB to Draft:Public image of Donald Trump:
  • For background: this fall, there were 5 AEs involving Specifico as a party, 3 of which involved Kolya Butternut (KB) as a party: AE #1, AE #2, AE #3, AE #4, AE #5. #1 was Specifico v. KB; #3 and #4 were KB v. Specifico, and KB was 1-way IBAN'd v. Specifico by Seraphimblade; #5 resulted in Specifico being TBANed for two weeks.
  • Additional background: Public image of Donald Trump was deleted following AFD in 2017 by Sandstein. On Nov 29, at KB's request, Sandstein draftified it.
  • KB edited Draft:Public image of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on Nov 30 and Dec 1.
  • Specifico edited the draft, including reverting some of KB's edits, on Dec 1 and Dec 2. See draft page history.
  • Specifico admitted that she started editing the draft because she saw KB's message on Sandstein's talk page.
  • KB didn't edit war and instead copied the draft to their userspace and worked on it there. User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Hats off to KB for that choice.
  • Later, KB emailed Sandstein about the draft and IBAN. Sandstein posted the email to KB's talk page and said to ask the admin who issued the IBAN. KB pinged Seraphim. Seraphim blocked KB.
  • This was a bad block. KB should be unblocked.
  • The 1-way IBAN should be reversed or turned into a 2-way or dropped altogether.
  • Seraphim should not use admin tools with respect to KB in the future. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn. I have not read the discussion that led to interaction ban and I'm not privy to details about Kolya Butternut's emails, except for what KB and Sandstein have publicly written on KB's user talk page. My understanding is that KB emailed Sandstein, who told KB to discuss the interaction ban with Seraphimblade, which is exactly what KB did: they asked politely whether Seraphimblade is "willing to discuss this". It wasn't clear what KB was referring to with "this".
  Let's assume that KB was asking Seraphimblade whether they could discuss converting the one-way ban to two-way ban. Can a reasonable person assume that asking the question falls under ban exemptions? I think so. Had Sandstein or Seraphimblade simply mentioned that asking the question on Wikipedia would be a violation the ban, I think Kolya Butternut would have received the message. Seraphimblade gave their negative answer a minute after blocking KB. Judging by Seraphimblade's reply here, KB was specifically blocked for making one comment, asking Seraphimblade whether they would be "willing to discuss this". Should Kolya Butternut be punished for following Sandstein's instructions? I don't think so. Politrukki (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• The appeal should be granted and the block undone. I would advise Seraphimblade to be more careful in the future. In my view, Kolya Butternut did not violate any interaction ban with their talk page messages because they did not refer to the user which the ban concerns. Even if this had been an interaction subject to the ban, it would have been allowed per WP:BANEX as an appeal of the ban. Sandstein 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• So, I'd like to be clear here. KB was not blocked for emailing Sandstein, or because Sandstein then posted the email on-wiki. It was not KB's idea that that should be mentioned on-wiki, so they can't be held accountable for that. However, I have explicitly warned KB in the past that the interaction ban (as do all interaction bans) covers continuing to make on-wiki complaints about, and requests for sanctions against, the party against whom the interaction ban applies. When KB asked to discuss sanctions against SPECIFICO on-wiki (and I cannot imagine to what else the "this" referred to), that violated the ban, after having already been warned for it once. If interaction bans don't cover requesting sanctions against the editor it applies to, we may as well not have them at all; that would constantly be used to end-run them. And that is exactly what happened here—an end run, attempting to cover it with BANEX. BANEX does not cover requesting sanctions against the editor from whom one is interaction banned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• You are right that Kolya Butternut's request was not an appeal of their own ban but a request to extend the ban to the other user. This does make the block defensible. That I advised Kolya Butternut to discuss the matter with you does not change this, because I lack the authority to make an exception from your sanction. Nonetheless, I think that the request (while borderline) is still within the sphere of "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" as allowed by WP:BANEX, and I would advise you to undo the block for this reason. Sandstein 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree, it doesn't seem that defensible to me. To be blocked over a question which reads (in full): "are you willing to discuss this?" That doesn't sit right with me. Not to mention seeing as you, yourself, as the admin consulted directed them to make that query. I mean, if the answer on the part of the enforcing admin is: "as I already told you, the answer is no due to X, etc.," then that's what it is. But to block over it? Seems rather excessive. Finally, a word on one-way IBANS: whenever I impose these, I always tell the party deemed to be not at fault to treat it as if it were 2-way. And that if they fail to do so, it will just formally become that. Now that makes sense to me. El_C 00:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block - we should give some latitude here. Given Sandstein's comment That is something you need to discuss with whoever imposed the interaction ban, I think virtually any editor could have continued like KB did. starship.paint (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn block and Extend to 2-Way IBAN. There's no good faith way, especially given their history, to understand why SPECIFICO would see a post by KB on Sandstein's talk page and go and revert KB on a draft article page, effectively locking out KB because of a 1 way IBAN. SPECIFICO further going into details about how KB can generate consensus on a draft article talk page to restore those reverts is a continuance of a long running discussion involving those editors about differing views on consensus required and ONUS. Finally, this is now the second time (here is the first) in a few weeks that Seraphimblade has blocked KB without bothering to understand or look into the details. Admins should be sure they are aware of what is going on before resorting to blocks. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• 2-way clearly necessary based on SPECIFICO's history of baiting KB, as by misgendering them as “it” at AE, and the incident with the draftified article; SPECIFICO literally followed KB into a draft they'd just started working on and made a flurry of edits that muddied the waters on whether KB could safely continue there. KB wisely retreated to their userspace to work on a copy there, but no one should be expected to have to do that because of a 1-way. When I asked SPECIFICO about the incident, they asked me why I was asking about it. Which is kind of jaw-dropping. —valereee (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking just as an admin, I would extend this to a 2-way iBan. One way ibans can cause these sort of dilemma for the users. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• I already commented on the block above, just adding that I agree with my colleagues that this sanction should be replaced by a 2-way interaction ban, as SPECIFICO is clearly following KB's edits to disruptively gain first mover advantage to shut KB out of topics where there is no prior dispute. Also, there's clearly consensus here that the block is improper, but Arbcom procedure requires either that the blocking admin vacate the block, or for there to be a formal close. @Seraphimblade: do the right thing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Ivanvector, KB cut-and-pasted nearly 100,000 bytes to a draft from an AfD'd article. I copy-edited, reverted, and reference checked +/-3000 bytes. There is nothing in KB's IBAN that precludes discussion of the content and sources or wording related to my edits. Trump happens to be a subject with which I'm highly familiar and active. Far from being disruptive or hostile edits -- or in any way personal or adverse to KB's participation -- I think most editors would welcome another editor suggesting changes to a tiny fraction of a cut-and-past presumably intended to jump-start such editing, reshaping and culling relevant content. If there is to be an appeal of the IBAN or a request for a sanction against me, e.g. making it 2-way, that should be done in a fully documented and orderly discussion on the merits, not as a general disaproval of 1-ways or casual aspersions about me in this unrelated context. As I said to Valereee on my talk page, there is nothing in KB's IBAN that would prohibit talk page discussion of article text, seeking consensus against my edits, or raising any of them at an RfC. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, with apologies, I find that a bit disingenuous. Admins can interpret violations of any ban narrowly or broadly, and can act with or without warning. We literally have seen both a broad interpretation and acting without warning in this incident. For someone with a 1-way IBAN who wants to be sure they're in the safe zone, this means retreating from any article where the person they're IBANned from has edited recently. I am dismayed that you are still arguing this. —valereee (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Valeree, please participate with evidence and diffs rather than repeating your personal distaste for me here and on my talk page. FYI, KB and I have edited constructively on several pages within hours of one another on Village Pump threads, essays, guideline pages and at least one policy page. I do not comment on KB personally. I comment, where appropriate on the content under discussion regardless of who has introduced it, and the idea that a few tweaks on this massive cut and paste -- which I presume KB intended simply as a first approximation to set out some of the topics, sources, and content that might ultimately comprise a valid non-deleted article -- was personal or hostile or provocative? Sometimes edits are reworded, removed, or checked for verification. We don't IBAN for small well-reasoned edits. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  SPECIFICO, not sure what you mean by 'personal distaste for you'. Up until the exchange we had yesterday I had no opinion of you whatsoever as far as I can recall, but here are a couple of diffs of you inserting comments above KB's: 1 2, which could on first glance make it look like they'd vio'd their iban. Not that this would fool anyone who bothered to investigate, but it could make KB a bit anxious since they couldn't object to the placement without violating their ban. To me this is the kind of thing that demands a 2-way. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Those two diffs are examples of the two of us editing a talk page thread with no problems. The placement, (which is the same as the placement of this comment now) clarified to whom I was responding and an obviated any concern that I might have been responding to KB. It's not reasonble to think that I placed the comment there to create an appearance KB had violated the IBAN when 1) the comments are all timestamped, and 2) Nobody expressed any concern about that. The "Consensus Required" page has long been on my watchlist and has long been a matter I've discussed on many pages due to the ongoing discussion and controversy about its effectiveness. I had just received a brief topic block under that sanction and it was then and is now a matter of interest to me. Again, there was nothing contentious or IBAN provocative about my participation there. Indeed every example you will find of the two of us on the same thread shows that I took care not to address KB, to refer to KB or to provoke any violation. You may as well search the Village Pump Policy and Verifiability/ONUS discussions as well, if you would like further data. SPECIFICO talk 22:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  And here's another: [29]. This is a page with 15 watchers. KB came in and edited, and a little while later, you started editing there also. This is really concerning. —valereee (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) That's not accurate at all. KB requested that the article be restored as a draft so they could work on it, and then copied some relevant content they likely intended to spin out to a new article. It took you less than 48 hours from the restoration to jump on the draft (reverting KB no less) and less than a day following that to edit enough of the draft that KB couldn't safely work on any part of it without risking a block. You say "most editors would welcome another editor suggesting changes", but I disagree: most editors would not "welcome" an editor they're prohibited from contact with descending on and taking over a topic they're interested in and have already invested significant effort in developing. Whether or not you intended to disrupt KB's participation in that topic, you did, and from the timing of everything it does look very much like you did so deliberately. If that's what you think is helpful then absolutely a 2-way IBAN is warranted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ivanvector 100% here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block and replace the one-way iBan by a 2-way iBan, per the comments of others above. Also, in view of Mr Ernie's comments, it'be preferable if a different admin, and not Seraphimblade, imposed the 2-way iBan in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The only thing that the IBAN would have prohibited would have been for KB to edit-war by undoing my copyedits and reverts. As you know, those were less than 5% of the content KB added. At any rate, to keep some orderly process and evidence-based discussion, the matter of a 2-way IBAN is distinct from the block appeal in this thread. SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

How exactly are they distinct? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Valeree, please participate with evidence and diffs rather than repeating your personal distaste for me here and on my talk page (bold is my emphasis) — SPECIFICO, this is not a good look. I'm not sure what prompted you to go that route, but you should know that it is serving you poorly. El_C 19:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn block and make the IBAN two-way. In September I had to ask Specifico not to call Kolya "it", as he did in an AE report: "This editor has recently begun to disregard its AP2 topic ban." Following her to the Trump draft meant she couldn't continue to work on it comfortably. A one-way ban means the other person should stay away too, to avoid appearing to bait. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  As I said above, I see no restriction that prevents KB from editing that draft subsequent to my edits there. Could you provide an example other than how KB feels? Also, the 1-way was enacted after thoroughly litigating everything up to that time. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  That very question—"other than how KB feels"—as if how she feels is of no importance. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  I did not say anything of the kind. But editors have a wide range of personal reactions to a wide range of circumstances, which is why we rely on policy, evidence, etc. Your comment, like Valereee's about "take my breath away" are valid personal reactions but not what I'd expect for evidence or argument. SPECIFICO talk 20:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  "jaw-dropping", not breathtaking. Easy mistake, but watch the quotes. —valereee (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block and make the IBAN two-way pretty much per SarahSV.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• So at this point I do not think I see anyone saying the ban should not be overturned, same with everyone pretty much in agreement that the IBAN should be converted to two way. Is it about time to close this then? PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

  The block should be lifted immediately. starship.paint (talk)

05:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• replace one-way iBan by a 2-way iBan These edits by Specifico show the necessity of changing the one way Iban to a two way one.1 2 Specifico's reasoning for placing their comments above KB's, and why it was acceptable, is not internally consistent. They say they did it to remove any concern that they were replying to KB and it was not a problem because time stamps mean no one would think KB was replying to them. Either timestamps are enough to assuage reply concerns, in which case there was no reason to put the later comment above the earlier one, or they are not and therefore Specifico was willing to let it appear KB's comment was a reply. I don't know Specifico's real reason, but since their professed one is not believable, I doubt it was respectable.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Bad block, endorse overturning of KB's block, replace one-way IBAN by two-way IBAN and Seraphimblade is now involved in KB blocks and should not sanction KB in future. KB should not have been blocked for understandable actions permitted by BANEX which caused no disruption (though the response to them has). Seraphimblade's actions contain mistakes that were avoidable in the cases of both blocks of KB, and a lack of a constructive attitude in response to good faith criticism. This pattern means the user is now involved and should avoid any further sanctions against KB, which will not be seen in the same light no matter how appropriate they are. Without alleging improper behaviour by SPECIFICO, their editing patterns since the one-way IBAN show the potential for serious conflict escalation between SPECIFICO and KB in the near future, and the only purpose of an IBAN is to avoid such conflict. — Bilorv (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I left a note at the talk page of Drmies asking to consider a full (rather than a partial close) to include the issue of a 2-way I-ban. However, in the meantime, I believe that the topic of replacing a 1-way I-ban by a 2-way i-ban can and should continue in this thread, and that editors wishing to comment further on this topic should do that just as Bilorv has done just above. Nsk92 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• BANEX clarified — I added including requesting 1-way IBANs be converted into 2-way IBANs (or vice-versa) to WP:BANEX, as this is the second time I'm aware of this year where an admin blocked an editor for this and it was overturned on appeal, so I think an explicit statement in BANEX would be helpful. We'll see if it's reverted. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

I have reviewed various pages related to this and will post a final summary statement and evidence within the next 9 hours. I'd request any close be done after that. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Per Drmies close, I will wait to see whether anyone wishes to continue discussion. I'll reserve my comment on the matter of Seraphimblade's handling of the block, which is now moot. While I understand that some editors advocated for a 2-way IBAN, I urge you to consider whether it is worth having that discussion, assembling diffs and pings, at this point. As I have told Drmies on his talk page, I will not revert any edits of KB while the current IBAN is in effect. In light of neither KB nor myself having any complaint except concerning my revert, I hope that will address the immediate concern. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A person who isn't allowed to complain can't be assumed to have no complaints. I'm not seeing the summary statement and evidence that you delayed the unblock for. This was a request that delayed the other editor from being able to participate in another discussion, which they'd requested to be allowed to do just a couple hours before you made the request to wait for your statement. —valereee (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

KB requesting a partial 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.

---

A few hours before SPECIFICO's request for a delay in the close to allow them to prepare a statement, KB asked if the discussion could be closed so they could participate in a discussion. They're now asking if a partial close w/re only the unblock request would be possible. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I agree KB should be unblocked now. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, KB should have been unblocked two days ago, but since the blocking admin doesn't seem to be around we need a formal close to enact consensus (arbcom rules). If SPECIFICO wants time to mount a response to the iban suggestion that's fine but there's no reason at all that KB should remain blocked while that happens. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:45, 26 December 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.

1-way > 2-way

Kolya Butternut has a 1-way i-ban from interacting with SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO has a history of trying to bait KB, such as by misgendering them as “it” in an AE complaint. Recently SPECIFICO noticed KB had asked for an AfD’d article to be draftified and had started to work on it. SPECIFICO came in behind KB and made edits that made it unclear whether KB could continue to edit there. KB wisely retreated to a copy in their userspace, where they continued to work, but this should not be required of editors under a 1-way i-ban. I am proposing making the 1-way i-ban a 2-way i-ban.

With apologies, pings to Ivanvector, Power~enwiki, Politrukki, Sandstein, El_C, Starship.paint, who (I believe, sorry if I got it wrong) commented on the block but did not comment on changing the 1-way to a 2-way. No need to comment if you don't want to, but in their close of the unblock portion of this, Drmies noted that they weren't sure there was consensus to change to a 2-way. —valereee (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• Good grief. I would have thought that a consensus for a 2-way iBan is already abundantly clear in the thread above. By my count, 10 users (Levivich, Mr Ernie, valereee, DGG, Ivanvector, myself, SarahSV, MONGO, AlmostFrancis and Bilorv) already spoke in favor of a 2-way iBan there, and only 1 (SPECIFICO), spoke against. For the record, I still support a 2-way i-Ban between KB and SPECIFICO. SPECIFICO's explanations for following KB to a draft are disingenous and unconvincing. Since SPECIFICO doesn't have the good sense to stay away from KB on their own, a 2-way i-Ban is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• FTR, I agree with the entire position of Bilorv above, including the 2 way IBAN. I disagree with this comment, given the evidence later presented by power and Levivich. It seems quite eh to now commit to a narrow "not reverting" the other person's contribs. 1 way IBANs seem to be a privilege; if one can't show some self-awareness and sensitivity regarding that (which I'm not seeing here) the ban should probably be converted to 2 way. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Suggestion to closer Speaking as an individual (in other words not as an arb-elect), if there is consensus to convert this to a 2 way IBAN, the the closer formally deal with the fact that the 1 way was a DS imposed ban. As there are slightly differences between a community imposed ban and one by DS it could potentially save confusion/aggrevation down the road if it was made clear that the 1 way DS iBAN was rescinded and replaced with a 2 way community iBan (again assuming that the close finds that consensus). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:31, 27 December 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.

Request for closure of a discussion on requests for closure

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 decided to make a formal request here, but please close this FfD discussion, as the AN/RfC request hasn't been acknowledged. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:09, 25 December 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.

This RfA hasn't been properly closed for over 12 years

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 probably doesn't belong here, but I found this, and I'd like you to formally close it for me, even though there are literally no !votes (except for mine), and it already is in Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It has never been transcluded as far as I can see, and thus does not need to be closed (in fact, can not be closed).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And I have reverted your vote.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, I'll assume that transcluding it 12 years later is not a good idea either. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not transcluded. You can nominate it for MfD if you wish but I would think most people would vote keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I started to tag it for MfD but couldn't think of a deletion rationale. The user who nominated themselves hasn't edited in 12 yeras, and this hasn't been a magnet for borderline disruptive activity all that time (up to today, anyway) so I don't think we really need to do anything here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, If you wish, you can tag the RfA as historical and/or close this discussion. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 22:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary. It's not exactly "historical" in the sense of how we usually define processes as historical, it's just, I don't know, a dead end? The unsuccessful RfA category should be removed, that could mess up stats, but it's 12 years old and really just doesn't matter. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:17, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I understand. Also, thank you for helping me realize that the image thing that I had on my userpage was a bad idea. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

You can't have 18,000 bytes of whitespace, it breaks things. A bot would have fixed it eventually. My mistake with the image, it's a common vandalism route to upload very large images which can break very old systems, and I assumed that was what was going on with your user page. I was on my way to restore the image but you had done it already. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't transcluded? Besides, why would you (in 2020) vote for an RfA from 2008? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, Great question. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Just on my watchlist alone, this is the second time today that someone has asked you "why did you [insert goofy thing here]" to which you've replied "I don't know" or "great question". Could you please start thinking about why you're doing the things you do before you do them? And if they don't make sense, don't do them? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I assume the other thing that you're referring to is the Primefac oversight thing, where I said "I don't know what I meant" because the question I asked was strangely worded in a way that I honestly didn't know what I meant by it.

In this case, I replied with "great question" because I didn't know how else to reply. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 22:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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

I tried to log in with an open proxy and...

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

---

It was blocked, but it still allowed me to make edits, including this one. The IP was 68.235.33.99. You may ask why am I confessing this, well I just wanted to ask how did this happen? JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 01:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

That block is "anonymous-only" which means that only logged out edits are blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:31, 30 December 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.

Blocked disruptive account/sockmaster disrupts images/maps on Wikimedia Commons

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.

---

• Special:Contributions/Matreeks => Blocked for sockpuppetry on English Wikipedia
• Special:Contributions/Matreeks - Wikimedia Commons

How we can deal with this account? He was a sleeper account since August 2016 but he activated his Wikimedia Commons account again (May 2020) and started targeting maps (especially ethno-lingusitic ones) and changes them based on his very own nationalistic POV. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 16:35, 27 December 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.

Request for an editnotice

Please consider adding an editnotice to WP:VP and WP:VPA that states that you should not edit the page to add a proposal, in case someone, for instance, didn't see the "do not post to this page directly". JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 00:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi JJPMaster, VPA is full-protected indefinitely and VP had no such edits since 2014. Am I overlooking something? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Has the 'test' editor, returned?

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.

---

A few years ago, I seem to recall that an IP(s) were blocked for making daily 'test edits' to a few articles, in short spurts. This seems to be re-ocurring with 'possibly' the same individual, at List of longest-living members of the British royal family & List of longest-reigning monarchs. Can this be tracked down? GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Pages semi-protected, 103.108.20.0/23 rangeblocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 25 December 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.

Sobbiebawa

I know I should have posted this on IRC, but (Redacted).

A promotional editor named Sobbiebawa (talk · contribs) appeared on Wikipedia last night. He quickly created three pages: his user page, User:Sobbiebawa/sandbox, and Draft:Neetu Shatran Wala. All of them had the same content, creating a musical "hero" named Neetu Shatran Wala. Materialscientist saw this and blocked him. The user page was quickly deleted (U5), but the drafts remain. He did not submit either of them, therefore preventing them from being reviewed. Would someone please delete the pages? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, Draft still seems to exist? Merry Christmas! Asartea ^{Talk Contribs!} 15:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Asartea and Ymblanter:, Ugh, I just moved the sandbox to the draft title to avoid the duplication, we must have crossed paths. I wondered why I didn't get a warning that the page already existed :-) I didn't think this was so far beyond the pale (considering our pathetically low standards for biographies) that G11 applied, but whatever. Feel free to do whatever you feel is appropriate with what's there now. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the draft again in the meanwhile, but now have restored it. It is unlikely to be accepted, but if not the draft would disappear in a year anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Mainpage frustration

Apologies if this isn't the right place to put this, but starting a discussion on the main page seem to lead nowhere. I went to the main page to "report an error" and was met with a rather annoying conversation about users complaining that we didn't "do enough for Beethoven's 250th". I had spent many hours working on List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven (including staying up way to late to get the DYK in time) for the lead DYK on his baptism day; and of course, all of the users discussing made no effort to do anything "for Beethoven" themselves but complained about others' apparent "failure" – even though my DYK was accompanied by 6–7 others by Gerda, who did a terrific job. Anyways, this is beside the main point, but suffice it to say, it didn't really put me in a great mood. The reason I had come to the main page was to ask why "Quaid-e-Azam Day" in OTD redirected to Muhammad Ali Jinnah rather than... uh... Quaid-e-Azam Day. I am confident that no reader will have any idea what "Quaid-e-Azam Day" is when sent to Jinnah's page, which doesn't explain it until the legacy section. Nothing seems to be done about this, and no convincing reasons have been given for this supposed error (to be clear, there has only been a response from one user). I can't help but be frustrated; I am sure that if Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter etc. linked to anything but Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter there would be mass confusion and the mistake would be fixed instantly, why is it suddenly different for this Pakistani holiday? I don't mean to make unfounded accusations of Western ignorance/bias, but I also can't help but feel such a way. (Happy holidays to all...) Aza24 (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The one response seems convincing enough to me. The "Quaid-e-Azam Day" article isn't fit for the main page and the "Muhammad Ali Jinnah" article is. The option then was to remove the entry completely or use the biography article. Quaid-e-Azam Day seems analogous to Washington's Birthday which was so unimportant to Americans that first we started calling it Presidents day and then mostly moved to MLK day, which is a much better holiday anyway. "Quaid-e-Azam Day" will be on the homepage once someone cares enough to upgrade it to homepage worthy. AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no relationship between Washington's Birthday and Martin Luther King Jr. Day. They both remain Federal holidays, and nothing was "mostly moved" from one to the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:, I'm assuming AlmostFrancis meant Lincoln's Birthday, with which Washington's was merged to create Presidents' Day. StarM 01:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Only in certain states. Washington's Birthday remains the federal holiday, and the creation of MLK Day did not "move" anything from Washington's Birthday. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Washington's_Birthday#Official_state_holidays is utterly fascinated. It's technically a state holiday where I am, yet I've only heard it called Presidents' Day. Agree re: MLK, I thought AF was conflating that with Lincoln. StarM 03:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

which was so unimportant to Americans that first we started calling it Presidents day and then mostly moved to MLK day, which is a much better holiday anyway. makes no sense, is completely false, and is backed up by no evidence. And sorry, but this explanation makes no sense either, I don't understand how linking to Jinnah, featured or not, gives any information as to Quaid-e-Azam Day at all. The only thing it says in the article is "His birthday is observed as a national holiday, Quaid-e-Azam Day, in Pakistan" – which means nothing, and is less information on the holiday than the Quaid-e-Azam Day article itself, which is fully referenced. I don't understand why no one here even recognizes that if a reader clicked on "Quaid-e-Azam Day" and was brought to the Muhammad Ali Jinnah page, they would still have no idea what the holiday even is – it's mentioned many paragraphs down in the Legacy section. The 5 million people who saw the main page on the 25th, were given a holiday that doesn't link to anything helpful or informative. Aza24 (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Aza24, there's always next year I guess. The main page very nearly missed the 75th VE Day altogether this year, and that's, I daresay, even more important than the founder's birthday in either nation. I wholly agree with everything you've said though. GPinkerton (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for my yearly reminder to not be glib on the internet. From the selected aniversary directions "The selected article (boldface item) must not be a stub and must be a relatively complete and well-formatted article, free from 'yellow'-level or more severe article issue tags". The article "Quaid-e-Azam Day" in not relatively complete and the only reason it does not have article tags is becasue no one has bothered. A quick look showed that much of the article is using a single years activies to generalize what happens every year, so would not pass verification in its current form. Now granted some aricles I am sure slip by but this article only would have survived errors if no one noticed. Of course there could be lesser rules for holidays as opposed to entries but it doesn't seem so. Both Shavuot and Easter have been ommited for lesser issues than Quaid-e-Azam day has. AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Legal Threat over at BLP Noticeboard

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 see Special:Diff/997099174 for relevant details. #3 in particular. Have a nice day. Slywriter (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - checking. Chetsford (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC); edited 02:18, 30 December 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 becoming more erratic and disruptive

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.

---

Over the last few years user Bilcat has had multiple complaints about becoming incoherent and edit warring. Bilcat suffers from severe medical problems and often has trouble controlling himself. This is becoming more and more of a problem and I would like it addressed.

For instance:

Here he has removed information which is already sourced while claiming it is not. Article clearly states and sources the information TWICE, but he removed it for not having sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III&diff=prev&oldid=996857631

Nonsensical revert that has nothing to do with what he reverted. Compare his reason to the text he reverted. They have nothing to do with one another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messerschmitt_Me_262&type=revision&diff=996853881&oldid=996853087

He also routinely uses the wrong templates, which cause confusion for admins. For instance, here he used a unconstructive template for obvious vandalism calling someone a terrorist. This causes confusion for admins checking user pages for previous warnings and disrupts the admin process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Incendiary_Taco

His history is also full of reverts that have nothing to do with anything but his personal preferences. What he is reverting is not actual violations, he's just doing it for the sake of doing it.

If he is having medical issues that cloud his judgement then he needs to address those issues instead of taking it out on random wiki members and being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.54.254 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The above smells distinctly of sour grapes. The first says nothign about not having sources; the second is a canned edit summary (the horror!) and the third is a light touch (super horror). If that's all you have to complain about an editor doing then I'd suggest you take a moment to remember policy prohibits personal attacks, and going "an editor has medical problems!!" is a personal attack if I ever saw one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Clear requirement for WP:BOOMERANG here for unprovoked personal attacks against a longstanding and valued editor. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Bilcat has reverted hundreds of instances of vandalism in articles related to the U.S military in recent years. His edits mostly relate to removing vandalism or edits that do not have required citations. In my opinion, Bilcat is doing a damned fine job. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

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

Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted

A motion regarding The Rambling Man case at Requests for Clarification and Amendment has been enacted after it reached majority support. The motion is as follows:

The Rambling Man topic ban from the Did You Know? process (Remedy 9 in The Rambling Man case) is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion: The Rambling Man topic ban lifted enacted

Simplify archiving at ANI

We currently have a number of problems at AN, primarily ANI that I feel could be mitigated:

1. Because of the number and size of cases, the page requires a tremendous amount of time from admins and anyone else who wants to assist. (Right now, e.g., the page contains about 47,000 words, which take more than 5 hours just reading time.)
2. The size also creates other problems – see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 15#Page size
3. Partly in an attempt to address #1 and #2, we employ a multitude of ways to archive the page. This causes more work than necessary and even makes closing counterproductive. All of this also reduces transparency, which is a problem, given that many users come here after experiences of frustration and mistrust.

These problems should be mitigated with the suggestion proposed at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 15#Archiving only closed threads on ANI. ◅ Sebastian 12:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I blocked a range instead of a single IP address

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.

---

A while ago, I wanted to extend the block for 85.76.76.45 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot), but when I was done, I realized that a whole /16 range was blocked; presumably because that was the range chosen for the last block from earlier this month (a page specific block). That makes sense, too, since the same person also edited from 85.76.64.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). However, the edits from that address were not always just trolling; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&diff=prev&oldid=997019537 was actually helpful. The same goes for other addresses in that range. So maybe the best way to proceed would be to keep the page specific block for the range for the original duration of 2 years, but apply the site wide block only for a much shorter period.

I had originally posted this at Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption#Exemption for not logged in users in search for the best way to resolve this, but I now realized that that was too narrow, and I need to be off Wiki for half a day, so I'm moving it here for greater visibility. Please don't hesitate to undo my actions in this case. Sorry about any inconvenience this may cause. ◅ Sebastian 23:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple things going on here. Your reference desk editor is within 85.76.64.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), except for a handful of older edits in 85.76.48.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). The editor who is the target of ToBeFree's earlier page block is a different editor, and that one edit is their only edit on that whole /16 range, for the range of time that I can look at. I don't think there's any reason for the entire /16 to be blocked for two years, it's quite a busy range. Why did you want to block the refdesk editor anyway? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for checking this. I blocked them because I saw only trolling in their contributions. Since I realized, as I wrote above, that the same person did some helpful edits, the easiest solution is to unblock the whole range, which I just did. You already pinged ToBeFree, but I will leave a message on his talk page, too. ◅ Sebastian 10:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The page-specific 2-year rangeblock on the /16 was an alternative to semiprotection of a user talk page, in response to severe, repeated harassment. I'll have a look again later, but that's "any reason" regarding my original partial block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a look again. You may filter the /16 contributions for the User talk namespace to see the extent of these ugly attacks. Per the last sentence of Special:Diff/997185742, I have reinstated the partial, not-account-creation-blocking, anon-only partial block. Thanks for the ping and the message ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:24, 30 December 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.

Unban

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

---

They banned me more than 3 months ago because I posted some info from The Lancet about studies related to Gam-COVID-Vac. I started that article on 12 August 2020. But I noticed that similar information was added to the article about Moderna's vaccine here, and the editors who made those contributions were not topic banned and the added text was not removed. Here is the text fragment that I was banned for by Salvio giuliano:

On 4 September 2020, in The Lancet, findings from two phase 1/2 of the vaccine were presented. The researchers enrolled 76 healthy adult volunteers (aged 18–60 years) into the two studies (38 people in each study). The primary outcome measures of the studies were safety and immunogenicity.

And this is the text about Moderna's vaccine:

On November 16, 2020, Moderna announced preliminary data from its Phase III clinical trial, indicating 94% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infection

And as no one was blocked for the similar text about Moderna's vaccine (even without any WP:MEDRS as it was substantiated by RexxS regarding my topic ban), then my topic ban should be reviewed because it seems to be erroneous. Moreover, my edits, for which I was blocked, did not violate WP:MEDRS. I am ready to conduct constructive work on the expansion and development of the article I started. --Александр Мотин (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, the obvious difference is that one vaccine's results were given from phase III trials, which is designed to determine clinical effectiveness, and you gave the other from phase 1/2 (I'm not sure what you mean by that), which are not, and only involved a few dozen people rather than the tens of thousands involved in a phase III trial. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: "Moderna announced [...] indicating 94% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 infection"... Why in my case when I cited The Lancet it is not good and "Moderna announced" is good? What specific WP rule do you have in mind?

On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. [...] The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective

--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

How about talking about trial phases in any further response that make? That was obviously the point of my comment, but you have completely ignored it in your goalpost-moving reply. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that this message itself is a topic ban violation, and the user must be blocked. Note also that he was recently unblocked by the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom and managed to survive4 only a few days before being indefinitely blocked (effectively site-banned) for wikilawyering and per NOTHERE.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What happens or does not happen in Russian Wikipedia doesn't seem relevant for discussing Александр Мотин's en-wiki sanctions. BANEX gives much leeway for appealing the ban. That said, their argument for unblocking is weak. It's basically a NOTTHEM argument that does not address how they would avoid making edits that are considered disruptive. If Александр Мотин fails to explain how they would avoid getting into trouble again, I would oppose lifting the ban. Politrukki (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

He may indeed appeal the ban at AN, but what he is doing is not really appealing the ban. He does not accept that the edits were disruptive in the first place (which he will continue doing until he is blocked with TPA removed, as he has already proven on many previous occasions), and, in addition, he is discussing the content of the topic he is still banned from.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: The full story is that my indef site-wide block by some RuWP admin was cancelled by the Russian ArbCom and his adminship was revoked. Then, another RuWP admin, that seemed to be angry because of this, indef blocked me again for a far-fetched reason contrary to the Russian ArbCom's decision. The issue is being resolved. And I totally agree with Politrukki that your reply is irrelevant. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The adminship was revoked because he asked for it, and it was not revoked by the ArbCom but as a voluntary request. The issue has been resolved indeed - you are indefinitely blocked from editing the Russian Wikipedia. This is why you are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That is not true: "Paragraph 3.1 The Arbitration Committee revokes user's adminship / Арбитражный комитет снимает с участника флаг администратора (с одновременным присвоением флага подводящего итоги)". I don't see any admin's "voluntary request" in this decision. And I draw your attention to the fact that you are not familiar with the rules of Wikipedia once you call to block me upon ban appealing. The similar story is on the Russian WP regarding another indef block. --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I have striken out this part of my comment. Concerning your opinion that I am unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies - well, when I ask for my unban you will be welcome to make this point (assuming you are not site-banned by then). Now we are discussing your unban, and I just do not see it happening. In fact it would save a lot of time for everybody if you get an indefinite block (which I also said last time and you have just proven me right), but if people are willing to give you more and more rope, fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, that RuWP admin said almost the same and his adminship was later revoked. I mean, you're not the first admin who is trying to demonize me in this way. At the same time, I do not understand at all what I have done to you, that you are constantly hounding me and turning other editors and admins against. --Александр Мотин (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• In the light of Ymblanter's comment and Alexander Motin's edits above I would support an indefinite block. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unban - user clearly still has problems with MEDRS and this topic specifically. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: Why was nobody banned for the similar text about Moderna's vaccine if you think that I "have problems with MEDRS"? My position is fully justified. What am I wrong about? --Александр Мотин (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    • You still don't seem to see the difference between a phase 1/2 trial, with a few dozen participants and not designed to show whether a vaccine actually works, and a phase 3 trial with tens of thousands participants which is designed to show that. Why do you carry on ignorantly making comments as if I hadn't pointed that out above? You can't avoid bans/blocks by simply ignoring statements based on scientific evidence that go against your preconceived ideas. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
      • @Phil Bridger: On your part, this is an attempt to steer the discussion into the scientific field. And, in this appeal, I write about bias and double standards in relation to my constructive contributions. I gave the examples above and this is enough to understand the situation. --Александр Мотин (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
        • My comment is totally valid. You said that you should be unblocked because edits by another editor to another article were allowed, but I pointed out that those edits are not comparable. There is a single standard here, which is to base edits on science, not politics. And please realise that you were not just blocked for one edit: that edit was simply the last straw. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
          • Of course, I was banned for that edit. Moreover, the ANI request by RexxS was a clear demonstration of WP:ADMINSHOP. This can be seen here.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            No, you were banned for long-term pro-Russian POV pushing (going well into propaganda territory) in articles related to politics and, well, complete inability to understand what was wrong with your edits. Obviously, you still have not understood it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

            Well, why was nobody blocked for this so called "long-term propaganda" and "pro-(pick any country here) POV pushing" if you think my edit is pro-Russian POV pushing:

On July 14, 2020, Moderna scientists published preliminary results of the Phase I dose escalation clinical trial of mRNA-1273, showing dose-dependent induction of neutralizing antibodies against S1/S2 as early as 15 days post-injection. [...] The vaccine in low doses was deemed safe and effective

I'd be very interested to know.--Александр Мотин (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • Both of your points are, quite obviously to anyone who looks at the situation, bollocks. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• Decline appeal. This is not a topic ban violation because it is an attempt at an appeal of the topic ban (WP:BANEX). However, I would decline it because it does not convince me that the decision to ban Александр Мотин was wrong. Sandstein 20:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that this is not a violation of the topic ban; appealing a topic ban explicitly doesn't count. I have no opinion on whether to grant the appeal. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Speaking as an admin, not an arb (only 7 more days , thank goodness), I would grant the appeal . The violation is borderline at most. The ruWP is thankfully not our concern. We can always reblock. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Handing out a topic ban for one edit would be excessive, but that's not what happened here. The topic ban was imposed for a pattern of behaviour. I suggest we decline this, a topic ban appeal does need to address the actual reasons for the topic ban and not focus on asking for other people to be punished. Hut 8.5 18:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Appealing a topic ban does not violate that ban, but commenting on other editors' contributions in the area subject to restrictions does. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Decline appeal. (However, on the procedural point, I think that Александр Мотин's posts in this thread, at least thus far, are covered by WP:BANEX.) I have read through the discussion in the original September WP:AN thread that lead to the Covid+Russian politics topic ban imposition, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive324#Александр Мотин and I find that the topic ban was fully justified. Александр Мотин's posts in this thread thus far clearly demonstrate why the topic ban is still needed. Nor was that September episode an isolated incident.There were earlier problems related to COVID-19, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1044#Александр Мотин reported by Zefr. Also, Александр Мотин had earlier, this June, been indefinitely topic banned from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 for disruptive editing and POV pushing there. I am neutral on the suggestion for a NOTHERE indef block. On one hand, there has been significant recent history of disruptive editing in several areas. On the other hand, the user is still contibuting, seemingly productively, on some other topics, particularly railway and subway stations. If there are problems present with Александр Мотин's editing even on those subjects, then, yes, a NOTHERE indef block would be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Decline. I can be very supportive of unban appeals when the banned user demonstrates an understanding of the reason for the ban and shows there is no need for it any more. A couple of cases we've had have led to editors rejoining this subject area and subsequently making some very positive contributions. But in this case I'm seeing nothing like that. All I see is repetitive insistence by Александр Мотин that they have done nothing wrong, and that others should have been banned for superficially similar but actually significantly different edits. On the specific Lancet source itself, the problem with that was very clearly explained in the original ban discussion. It has also been explained several times here in this very discussion by Phil Bridger. But all I'm seeing is a refusal to listen and no attempt whatsoever to consider those explanations, and just stonewalling insistence that the ban was wrong. And that's just the triggering event for the ban, which really should be very easy to address. There has been no attempt to address the wider NPOV issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

& Since this a topic ban appeal, it would be good if someone closes it rather than lets a bot archive it without a formal close.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 30 December 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.

Persistent vandals turning quality article into a stub

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. We are a group of four mother and former foster care youth who have tried to make some very important edits about child deaths, kids being beaten, and physical and sexual abuse in a state care system in Rhode Island. These stories have been all over the news. And we are scared that they are hiding the truth by deleting the sources and stories. This is very serious and it is documented by local and national news very reliable sources. Somehow our edit are met with anger and laughs. We need some help as no one will stop these bad editors and anyone who disagrees with them is instantly called a “sock puppet” and they are banned. There are editors who are making unwise edits here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_Department_of_Children,_Youth_%26_Families

When we tried to edit and reflect the truth of the DCYF: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rhode_Island_Department_of_Children,_Youth_%26_Families&oldid=997627374

I have tried to balance the article with national and local news sources from previous edits but these two or three editors keep reverting it including User:ProcrastinatingReader. Please, take a moment to review our edits and see why they may be valuable to the article. The talk page did nothing for another user and my friend was just called a “sock puppet” of another user who tried to show the truth on DCYf, when we have nothing to do with her/him. It seems like anyone who edits this article or anyone who tries to reform that system is not wanted on Wikipedia. That’s not what I thought Wikipedia was about. Anyway, if an admin could stop the vandalism I would be over the moon. People can make edits with reliable sources about Trump, about Celebrities, about politicians, about groups and churches, Boy Scout abuse, church abuse, Scientology abuse. Why does a state agency get special treatment when they are constantly in the news for hurting or nearly killing kids? Yakuza9 (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You are a group of people, you say? And you are here to right great wrongs? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Blocked by Primefac - sockpuppetry. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for page protection

• COVID-19 pandemic in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Extended confirmed protection: Page is subjected to disruptive editing that includes addition of misinformation and un encyclopedic materials. 2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that happening right now on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Liz because it was extended protected and protection has expired. Recently a lot of material was removed due to being non encyclopedic thanks to AmandaNP for the cleanup. 2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@2402:3A80:1133:471:1EC7:B7C4:769A:3B3B: per WP:PREEMPT, pages cannot be protected preemptively. 36.76.232.198 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Luxofluxo unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Luxofluxo (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction and a topic ban from European Schools. These restrictions may be appealed on-wiki after 6 months. For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 00:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Strange page

Any ideas what Template talk:Badtitle/ApiErrorFormatter::getDummyTitle is? It could be speedied but how are people finding it? Johnuniq (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No comment on the page, but editors are probably using quarry: with sql like this -FASTILY 02:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The edits seem more typical of new users though. Maybe ask at the technical village pump? Graham87 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Is discussion of T. D. Adler editorials permitted on article talk pages?

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

---

I started a discussion at User_talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#Repeatedly_reverting_me_on_talk_pages. The editor thinks that my talk page comments referring to T. D. Adler should be reverted or archived because T. D. Adler was banned from Wikipedia and Breitbart (his primary publishing outlet) is deprecated. I disagree, and have had no contact or coordination with T. D. Adler on or off-wiki. A somewhat similar conversation that I started with another editor is ongoing and appears to be at least somewhat conciliatory. This particular user though is digging in his heals.

I am looking for informed persons here to weigh in about this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, Adler was banned from WP for off-wiki harassment of other editors. They have continued this with around 60 “editorials” enabled by Breitbart. (Can't link to the list as the site is blacklisted.) I don’t know your purpose – but, knowingly or not, linking to posts like this on multiple article TPs [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] contributes to harassment and is not helpful to the project as Adler’s posts look like a year-long rant. Perhaps you should just explain your purpose. O3000 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A large number of Epiphyllumlover's recent edits have involved inserting and reinserting links on article talk pages to material written in various places by The Devil's Advocate, who has been permanently banned from the English Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for a number of reasons. Kamala Harris, Mark Levin, CNN controversies, Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory, Lauren Southern, Sarah Jeong, Ilhan Omar, and The Epoch Times. This material, posted on right-wing extremist sites such as Breitbart or even what amounts to a personal blog, includes personal attacks, false claims, and bad-faith accusations against a number of named Wikipedians. The links to Breitbart are even blacklisted, so they've had to intentionally evade the blacklist to post them.

Myself and several other editors, including Philip Cross, Binksternet, and JayBeeEll, have objected and reverted the links, and attempted to explain to them why they are objectionable. Epiphyllumlover frames their posts as just asking questions, but I view the wholesale and widespread posting of links to material carrying out the obvious retaliatory vendetta of a banned user to be dangerously close to proxying for said banned editor. There is no reason for this material to be linked on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; I do not think I have anything to add to your comments or to O3000's, both of which seem to accurately describe the situation. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I admit I haven't read most of them but I'm surprised to see TDA's articles at Breitbart referred to as "harassment". Maybe this is my American bias speaking but I feel like freedom of the press and freedom of speech are important even if we disagree with what people say. What's the difference between TDA's articles at Breitbart and someone else's blog post at Wikipediocracy, or any of the many other websites where people write about Wikipedia (some of whom are also banned editors)? Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  Well, in this instance the difference is that someone tried to spam them across a large number of articles without articulating a plausible story about how that might be related to improving the encyclopedia. --JBL (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  I brought up off-wiki harassment as I think that’s a part of his block. I suppose continuing it at Breitbart with 60 “editorials”, after an indef, is not harassment. But, sprinkling links to them in ATPs seems questionable, particularly when some out editor names. O3000 (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  You should probably read them, then, because they basically consist of a slew of false accusations, personal attacks, and axe-grinding against long-term editors. For example, there is a claim in one article that Snooganssnoogans "smeared" The Gateway Pundit by (accurately, and with a slew of sources) describing the site as "known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes." That this statement is impeccably sourced and factually true is irrelevant to TDA - they describe it as "smears of conservatives" because... well, because their feelings are hurt by the facts, I suppose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not perceiving a difference between someone writing that someone "smeared" an organization, and you writing just now about someone that "their feelings are hurt by the facts". In both instances, someone is saying something unkind about someone on the internet. Spamming links (to anything) is a different story; talk pages should be used for talking about improving articles. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  If there was any conversation at all about improving articles, this thread probably wouldn't have been started. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be a ban on discussing them, if it's relevant to improving an article. However, simply spamming "what do you think about this" for many of his editorials is inappropriate, especially when the articles are a banned editor posting on a blacklisted site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a situation where no amount of disingenuous posturing is going to cover the fact that these are links to content from banned users with a history of attacking and harassing Wikipedians. There is no justification for posting links to such material here. If you continue to attempt to sneak in such content, you can be blocked as clearly not here to improve this encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

• To be honest, I am not quite sure what we are discussing here. Apparently, there is consensus that Breitbart must be deprecated, and the site have been blacklisted. This means that any information published there is not considered by the community to be useful for improving Wikipedia, with a possible exception of information of Breitbart itself. If someone wants to change this consensus, they must open an RfC and explain why Breitbart should be removed from the blacklit, or why certain aspects of its publications can improve Wiokipedia. Technically speaking (though IMO exremely unlikely) an outcome of this discussion could even be that Adler's editorials are reliable sources and thus can be cited.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically they can still be used under opinion type stuff. Per the RFC and RSP This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary. No idea what that situation would be but there ya go. PackMecEng (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Epiphyllumlover: Checking those links would be boring so let me say that from now, anyone who amplifies the thoughts of a banned user will be blocked. Sure, if there were a chance that material might be useful for improving an article, it might mentioned. However, breitbart.com is not a reliable source so mentioning that site would be misguided. In particular, mentioning it in multiple places would indicate a disinterest in improving the encyclopedia. Wikipedia has fans and haters—neither have a right to be amplified on talk pages. Free speech is great but this is not the website for that. An amusing feature of this issue is that whereas Wikipediocracy would normally be the right place to discuss such opinions, they might not allow amplification of TDA's thoughts either. Johnuniq (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Echoing some of the above: linking a TDA "editorial" or Breitbart article on a talkpage as a possible source might be an innocent suggestion from someone unaware of the spam blacklist. Linking TDA editorials and Breitbart articles on multiple pages, including spacing in the url to get around the blacklist restriction, is bordering on disingenuous. Please stop doing this. These editorials are not reliable sources and your continued posting of them is a misuse of article talkpages. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• We have consensus that posting references to Adler's content en masse is disruption, from how I read the above. But discussion of the articles is not prohibited, so far as I am aware. My user page contains (right at the bottom) quotes and my summaries of two of Adler's articles, as I'm rather proud of my mentions in them (I'm portrayed negatively, of course). So far I've seen nobody object but I would remove it if I saw it causing significant controversy. It seems to me that referencing the articles is only disruptive if such actions would be disruptive whether or not it was specifically Adler and Breitbart (i.e. spam posting of links to a particular website is not helpful on talk pages unless it relates to something immediately and uncontroversially actionable). — Bilorv (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't suggest that WP:DENY would be effective with someone as dedicated as TDA but the more we say about him and his predictable opinions, the more trouble we bring for the encyclopedia. If you really want to publicize his achievements on your user page, I guess that's ok, but using an article talk page to chat about a blacklisted, guaranteed unreliable opinion would not be productive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  I agree with Bilorv's summary. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining this. I suspect Adler is a crypto-Wikipedian, given his manner of writing and strong attachment to the subject. He may reconcile with you someday, but it won't be tomorrow.

I intend to post Adler links to talk pages only if there is a particular & relevant topic to discuss that is described in the links. Because he is banned I will not post the general "I don't endorse this, but you might find it helpful" type message.

From your discussion I can see that there is no consensus that posting an Adler link constitutes "proxying for said banned editor". Rather the policies it runs up against are the ones on spamming & constructiveness. That Adler is banned is not really the problem; rather it was that my edits could be interpreted as spamming or as being of limited constructiveness.

My response to the "large number of articles" type comments is that they are exaggerations. Moreover, I don't have any other such article up my sleeve to add in even if you gave me a green light.

My response about the "If you continue to attempt to sneak in such content" is that it ignores the good-faith which I have repeatedly demonstrated. As for the blacklisting aspect and using a space to break the link; as I understand it the software cannot differentiate between links to articles and links to talk pages. So there is nothing disingenuous about getting around a software defect.

My response to the "not here" comment is that even if 70% of an editorial is trash, it is possible that something else might be helpful. (Not in the article--but for editors trying to understand where the article came from and where it is going.) Specifically that he summarizes the edit history of highly contested articles is helpful. As an analogy, some Catholic libraries keep a copy of the Examination of the Council of Trent even though it is Lutheran and highly critical of the Council of Trent. The reason for this is that they find some value in the dialectic nature of the dispute. Also, the volumes contain many quotes and summarize a great deal of sources on interesting topics. So it is helpful for understanding what went on at Trent, even though it is a critical source that was on the Index of Forbidden Books sort of like Breitbart is today.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The only reason to post something on an article talk page is to make an actionable proposal to improve the article based on policy. Adding links that are indistinguishable from trolling and/or proxying for a banned user and/or lack of competence will lead to a block. You might feel that a block issued by me would be overturned on appeal—that is your call. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think Bilorv did a good job covering the situation. Also WP:DENY is not really a thing in this situation or in general really given it is only a user essay. PackMecEng (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

• "The only reason to post"--you mean, aside from the media mention template. (But Breitbart is not supposed to be posted to the media mention template because it is depreciated.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, you write: "It is hard to avoid them because Google News indexes them." Editors are expected to use crap filters. Google finds everything, and you should know better than to use (or even read) the junk it finds. A failure to have a well-developed crap filter is problematic. You are not some random person who doesn't understand our RS policy, or knows that Breitbart is a deprecated source. Even without a crap filter, you know that much, and yet you persist in proxying for a banned user. You know the author is banned, that type of content is forbidden, and that the source is unreliable and deprecated/blacklisted. You have no excuse for linking to it or even mentioning it here. All those diffs of your edits should be revdeleted as some of those links endanger the lives of editors here. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not against consensus or policy from what I can tell. The only issue might be the on masse part. PackMecEng (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Valjean, only by jettisoning my crap filter was I able to find more media mention template candidates, because the top rate newsmedia sources don't cite or discuss Wikipedia as much. (But yes, there are downsides to this.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Why would you jettison your crap filter? You do realize that most of what resides on the Internet is utter nonsense as anyone can post anything therein. In my field, 99+% of what is posted is idiocy. This is an encyclopedia, not aa aggregator looking for hits to sell baldness products and viagra. But, I really am a French model. O3000 (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

"Jettisoning my crap filter". Luv it! Take a "walk on the wild side" at your own peril. What you do off-wiki is your own business, just don't bring it here. We don't want the results of unprotected browsing infecting us here. I do that too, but strictly for research purposes, and never for use as content here. That's how I can recognize where some people get their ideas and know when they are referring to misinformation found on unreliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

TDA may engage in what a reasonable person could construe as defamation or false light which could be actionable, and I strongly discourage anyone from posting any of it anywhere on Wikipedia. (hi TDA!) soibangla (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreeing with those above that these editorials should not be linked. The Devil's Advocate/"T.D. Adler" has been using Breitbart to continue his grudges against various Wikipedia editors (full disclosure, I am one of them), and we should not be encouraging his attempts to continue to harass editors (or direct harassment towards them via Breitbart's readers) even after being banned for such behavior. For those arguing that TDA's writings are somehow critically useful, the few I've read have been riddled with falsehoods, either intentional or due to sloppy research, and intentional bending of facts to try to fit his narrative. There is no editorial value to these Breitbart op-eds at all; they are a pretty transparent attempt at drawing clicks to Breitbart via the tired "the internet is being destroyed by leftists!" trope, although I have to wonder at how successful they are given that they often go far deeper into Wikipedia esoterica than I would think would interest your average reader of Breitbart (or any other publication other than perhaps the Signpost). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 30 December 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.

Ongoing Caliph issues at two talk pages

Would it be possible to get big edit notices (or semi-protection again, if that's a preferred option) at Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate due to non-stop WP:CALIPH issues please? The recent history of both is full of non-stop complaints and/or BLP violations. FDW777 (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I am afraid if the users are incapable of reading the sentence directly below which they are posting (in the same topic), they will not read notices. A semi-protection for a few days looks to me the only reasonable option.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added an editnotice to Talk:Mirza Masroor Ahmad and replaced the one at Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate with stronger wording. I suggest if you see any more posts of this type, you should simply revert them. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the same kinda thing that happened at Sushant Singh Rajput earlier this year. The editnotice does not help as they cannot be seen on mobile. The community wishlist item to implement this did not get enough support, unfortunately, and the phab task is otherwise stuck. Looking at history, many of these driveby requests were submitted on mobile. My experience at SSR’s talk was that these people often don’t come back to read the response. Just revert imo, and stop the archives being clogged up with nonsense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help/advice. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

We could always repurpose Special:AbuseFilter/1106 for this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Now it's blowing up [38]. Be interesting to see the WMF response. Nthep (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

There's a thread on ANI, FYI. Pahunkat (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Question about files

Hello. I need some help with the two files I uploaded yesterday. After receiving warnings from MifterBot, I followed the instructions, declared myself as the creator of the files as I took them with my phone's camera feature, and released them to public domain. Does anything else need to be done with these files before they are here to stay? 302 Views (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The file pages are still a bit sketchy; the copyright tags are there, but that's it. Using the {{Information}} template provides all required ... well, information . Happy New Year and all the best, Miniapolis 23:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

General Sanctions notification

There is a proposal to change the wording of our GS notifications. Your input is requested at the template's talk page. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

User: Indy beetle User:Brigade_Piron

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.

---

When i said wikipedia is becoming like Marxists.org becaue of the selective writing of history, Indy beetle (talk) told me that i am a "whiny little bitch" i think that is a clear personal attack and reason to be blocked...

His exact text Maybe you could provide sources instead of being a whiny little bitch? I’m no Marxist, and your complaints do not strengthen your argument. Show me some sources, and I’ll consider writing an article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Congolese_Independence_Speech#can_someone_make_a_page_for_King_Baudoins_speech

The same with (talk) who insults me on the fact that i cant spell, is that the way users treath other users here? with Personal attacks? please do something about both of them, thanks. KingBaudoin (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

This from you - You are trying to rewrite history here by highlighting certain events, and silencing others, with the cultural marxist, self hating, far left, anti-colonial, the past is evil narative... - is quite an accusation and doesn’t strike me as very polite. Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, although its wording is regrettable, the response seems completely appropriate in both tone and content, given the OP's behavior. If you don't want to be treated like an ass, don't act like one. --JBL (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Also this is pretty clearly the same person; edit summaries include "yes your totalitarian Stalinist strategies are known to me" and "Please keep that Amlerican racism in America". You seem like a really charming guy. --JBL (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's make something clear right now. An IP account had posted a request on the Talk:Congolese Independence Speech page (which is about a speech by Patrice Lumumba) requesting that we write an article on the speech delivered by King of the Belgians Baudouin at the same ceremony. I responded very plainly: "Much attention has been given to the significance of Lumumbas speech, including rhetorical analysis. I don’t think there’s enough material to prove the kings speech is independently notable.". User:KingBaudoin then appears and responds with not an attack on Wikipedia, but an attack on me: You are trying to rewrite history here by highlighting certain events, and silencing others, with the cultural marxist, self hating, far left, anti-colonial, the past is evil narative... claiming that the independance speech of king Baudouin is not relevant or naotable, is simply ridiculous and false! For some background, the Belgian royalist crowd has been upset ever since the summer, when King Leopold's statues started coming down and they've taken to Wikipedia to complain about Marxism. I for one am tired of being called a "Marxist" or being told I'm engaging in Marxist revisionism by someone because I won't do exactly as they say. I also reiterated my first point, saying I'd change my mind if KingBaudoin would provide sources. They haven't. Please close this case. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry that the KingBaudoin feels as s/he does. I thought Indy beetle's choice of words was unfortunate and was genuinely trying to be conciliatory in my original comment in spite of the fact that KingBaudoin was and is obviously abusing WP:AGF. My reference to spelling was, perhaps, a cheap shot but hardly constitutes a "personal attack". —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

pointing out to someone that someone is rewriting history is not a personal attack, it is what it is and i gave a clear reason for it also, you can then disagree and say why you disagree, but insulting me with the words "whiny little bitch" is not apropiate and not a reason or argument!

JBL and Malcolmxl5 are trying to make the personal attack less significant by trying to make me look bad, its a very cheap and old distraction trick comparable with: when A guy rappes a woman, and then later when he got caught tries to justify it with, yes i did it BUT SHE WAS RUDE ALSO... 2 wrongs dont make a right..

And user JBL insults me again by claiming i am a royalist angry about Leopold II statues, what does the speech of King Baudouin have to do with statues of leopold II, and btw today i upload a poster against Leopold II, your false claims makes no sense, and yes if you highlight only certain events, and selectivly try to erase others, you are operating as a cultural Marxist, this has nothing to do with Leopold II statues, and i am not the only person critisising wikipedia for benig Marxist, just google it, you will find countless articles, not to mention on what is said on social media about wikipedia, but hey i guess they are all royalist angry about Leopold II... but again this is not a reason to name me like this, i request this person to be sanctioned as he is not above the rules!

to say to someone that one is a "whiny little bitch" is a clear personal attack and insult.... just as making fun with one spelling but There is clearly a double standard here, when i would make a comment like that i would be blocked for sure, but the senior editors at Wikipedia here have different rules... this is not right! And i demand action! KingBaudoin (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

and now i notice that Brigade Piron is even calling me a woman, with this text "::I am sorry that the KingBaudoin feels as s/he does." when my name is clearly that of a male.. i guess some can say everything on wikipedia, and others nothing... and then you complain that people compare wikipedia with Marxism and stalinism... KingBaudoin (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1. This was closed. Re-opening it is not a great idea.
• 2. You can demand action all you wish, that does not mean anything will happen.
• 3. Using "s/he" means "she or he" - i.e. the other editor is actually being courteous, and not assuming you are any particular gender.
• 4. I am re-closing it. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Vandalism despite pending changes - how?

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

---

I've just hidden the content of a vandal edit by a non-logged-in user. I was surprised to have to do so, because the article has pending changes switched on. What happened there? The edit had these tags: Mobile edit, canned edit summary, Mobile app edit, Android app edit, Reverted.  — Scott • talk 12:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit articles with pending changes switched on. Notice the text above the edit: [pending revision]. This means that the edit won't be visible until the edit is reviewed by someone with the reviewer usergroup. You can also look at the page history and see that their edit is not highlighted in blue, meaning it wasn't accepted. For more information see Wikipedia:Pending changes. Eyebeller 12:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eyebeller: Thanks - you'd think that I'd know that by now after all these years. The [accepted revision] and [pending revision] labels are kind of hidden where they are, directly under the "Browse history interactively" bar - my attention went to the usual diff stuff underneath and I didn't see them. They're also not mentioned on the watchlist... I'll put something on Phabricator asking for more visibility.  — Scott • talk 13:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Happy to help. :-) I agree, the labels are quite hidden - good idea. Eyebeller 13:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:Sievert 81

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.

---

• Sievert 81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was advised not to post on here, but I don't know where else to post this besides creating a Meta RfC.

Sievert 81 (talk · contribs) is a user who has been indefinitely blocked on here due to disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and adding factual inaccuracies to medical articles. This user has also been subject to a site ban per WP:3X, in addition to community sanctions placed following WP:SIEVERT. I came here because it seems like the user is still trying to evade his indefinite block and global lock, using accounts such as:

75k cases (talk · contribs)

Sievert 81 Genghis Khan (talk · contribs)

Sievert 75k cases (talk · contribs)

There are also several suspected sockpuppets who have been globally locked due to inappropriate username.

I came here to ask for advice on how to deal with this situation, as I believe that the only ways to end this issue once and for all are to either institute an indefinite [global] block of his IP address with account creation disabled, or to start an RfC on Meta to propose a global ban, notwithstanding the fact that he does not meet the global ban criteria. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 13:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

All of those accounts have been blocked and/or locked since mid-December. There has been no activity at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sievert 81 since December 10th either. The user is already banned, and I'm assuming if there is an easy single IP address or clear range to hardblock, CheckUsers will have done so already. Is there recent activity from him that hasn't been dealt with? If so, reporting the new accounts to SPI is the solution. I'm honestly not sure why you're suggesting Meta needs to be involved unless he is doing cross-wiki disruption. ~ mazca ^talk 13:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In addition to what Mazca said above, if you want some advice, don't concentrate on any of these vandals. The more you talk to or about them, the more LTA impersonation trolls such as 'Sievert 81 Genghis Khan' will turn up, and probably pester you personally. Whoever gave you the advice to not post here was correct. Just RBI, and report to SPI occasionally to keep some track and get an update on whether checkusers can apply range blocks (which may be a possibility with this one). If checkusers can't apply a local range block, a global block is unlikely (and please read up on global block capabilities). Also as a general rule, the more you get global involved, the more global any disruption will be. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No offence, but I don't understand your perverse interest in Sievert. They have had one batch of editing socks blocked in early December, including the examples you cite. Since then, you've requested community sanctions, claimed that the community passed sanctions (it did not, a Checkuser simply confirmed they are 3X'd), tried to get them added to the UAA blacklist, consistently, inappropriately, fiddled around with their block notices, and even gave this low-level sock its own shortcut, now this section, and that's just the stuff from my watchlist that I still remember. Note again that the lack SPI addition, and last editing history as far as I can see, was in the original 10 Dec batch (or thereabouts). You've given the sock more attention than they even gained for themselves. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Unblock request by Huggums537

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 an uninvolved admin look at User talk:Huggums537#New Request please? Nutshell version: an unblock request was placed back in August, and was being discussed by various admins with the last edit being made on 2 December. On 2 January I looked at this case, and as there had been no further discussion I closed it as {{decline stale}}. Huggums537 has questioned this outcome, and also raised an issue about the general closure method for stale requests (which could be a bigger can of worms, especially after Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 6#Template:Decline stale). Personally I'm neutral about unblocking this user, and will have no further involvement other than notifying them about this discussion. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock per WP:ROPE and slight consensus. No procedural issues seen. Miniapolis 23:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock per WP:ROPE and slight consensus in favor of it. As an aside, I've long felt that {{decline stale}} has been more problematic than helpful for users requesting to be unblocked and that it isn't as helpful as CAT:RFU patrolling admins say that it is. If anything, WP:BP#Unblocking should probably be revised so that admins that read through a request but decline to take action on an unblock request should note why they're abstaining on the request. I think that the added context would be helpful for other admins that are patrolling. But that's another discussion that would be better off if it were held somewhere else, and I'm not really interested in reopening that can of worms. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've unblocked them, as no objections raised (blocking admin has retired). I'll raise the subject of the stale template on another page when I have more time. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 14:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support Unblock Supported on the user's talk page more than once. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Nicholas Alahverdian

Moved from Special:PermaLink/998264388#Nicholas_Alahverdian (ANI)

There are allegations flying back and forth about sock-puppetry, G4 violations, etc. I am getting e-mails from new accounts alleging off-wiki threats, blackmail and/or coercion, violations of BLP rules, etc.

Could I have some non-involved admins take a look at this article and its history with fresh eyes? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

All you need to read is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr42 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fred newman/Archive. And this should probably be at WP:AN. This is long-time socking, I don't really know what there is to discuss here. The OS team are also aware of the situation, and it was an article under heavy scrutiny from multiple admins and functionaries. It should be restored, I don't know why it's still deleted. I imagine the emails you're getting are because you deleted the article, and the socks don't want you to undelete it. It's a very persistent sock, so perhaps you'll have to disable email for a while? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

for context, this is: User_talk:Orangemike#Nicholas_Alahverdian, though I'm not sure why I got the ANI message for this ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have undeleted the article, as it was not a valid G4 deletion. G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version", and it was very different to the version deleted via the quoted AFD. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Boing. Could you undelete the talk too? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Ah yes, I missed that - looks like someone else got it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• For ease of anyone else here wondering about the history: The 3rd nom contains links to the 2nd 'Keep' result in 2019, which is at least 2 years after the 2017 discussion quoted by Orangemike in his deletion log rationale for (as Boing! points out) a substantially different article. Really admins, if you are going to action requests by obvious sockpuppets, please take the 30 seconds to check the other AFD's that are more recently relevant, as well as that the reason used is correct. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• And I see Primefac has cleaned up the history by getting rid of previously deleted versions. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  What can I say, I'm a stickler for historical accuracy. Primefac (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Hehe, good work. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• If anyone has received emails from any socks that are not yet blocked, or has seen any other WP:SPAs who are not yet blocked, please bring them to my attention so that I can investigate. I've also shared some information with checkusers from other wikis, as the socks have also recently been active at least on simplewiki. ST47 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This is such a curious case over the years, with some sockpuppets puffing up the article with insignificant praise & detail and other sockpuppet camps trying to get the article deleted. Plus the Wikipediocracy investigative articles that they decide to yank off their website for potentially legal issues. All about an individual who is presumed deceased for nearly a year. I wish some reliable media outfit would look into this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested unnecessary page move rollback

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 Superior (film) page was arbitrarily moved to Draft:Superior (film) by a novice user. The film has already been completed so it is not necessary to do this, this is only done when the film is not yet in the shooting phase. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. In the future please use WP:RM/TR. In any case, please let the user know that the move was wrong, per the relevant guideline. --Izno (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Would a range block help?

Would a range block solve what's going on at Talk:List of lighthouses in China? I think the fact the IP edits stopped dead for two days and then suddenly started back up again yesterday is further evidence this is a single person. —valereee (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What a bizarre discussion. I agree completely that much of this is very likely to be one person cycling through IP addresses - all the IPs I've checked do geolocate to Hong Kong, but given the topic that shouldn't be a surprise either way. There are a few very tight ranges - 210.6.10.130 and 210.6.10.148, for example, or 219.76.18.75 and 219.76.18.74 - but overall the person seems to be deliberately using as many different local connections as possible, or the ISPs in use just have very dynamic addresses. I cannot spot a useful range to block that would stop this without collateral damage, continued semi-protection of the talk page seems to be the only alternative. ~ mazca ^talk 13:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The ranges of the IPs I see causing disruption are 210.6.0.0/18 and 219.76.0.0/16. Looking at the contributions for 219.76.0.0/16 show a smaller chance of collateral damage, but the contributions for 210.6.0.0/18 show a high chance of collateral damage. I'd be comfortable blocking the /16 range, but not so much with the /18. Hope this helps! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! —valereee (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Avengeramb333

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

---

They literally spend all of their time deleting canonly gay characters and erasing their partners just to be homophobic. The main edits they make are of castiel and dean’s wiki pages. But I can’t edit it back because it’s “protected against vandalism.” Like no it’s being vandalized by a homophobe. Actions need to be taken. This shouldn’t be tolerated. I’ve had enough of the straights try erasing my existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.126.24.90 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

At a glance this looks like a run of the mill content dispute with fanon vs. cited content; the OP (who seems to have since made an account) has continued casting aspersions at Avengeramb333's talk page - where they did not notify them of this discussion as is required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this is Avengeramb333 responding. As Bushranger pointed out this is the run of the mill content dispute with fanon vs. cited content. I'm thankful that User:The Bushranger has notified me about this for I was not notified by the complainant as required. I would like to point out that I am not a homophobe as 141.126.24.90 claims me to be. I'm just following the facts about certain fictional characters according to the content they originated from and not the fanfiction. (I would also like to point out that personally I do not like being labelled or my sexuality assumed by people who do not know me.) Avengeramb333 07:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that it's interesting this IP user accuses Avengeramb333 of "erasing their existence", when they themselves made this edit with the summary "Ace people have not faced any sort of hate crime. Literally ever for being ace. as a bi person this is extremely offensive to try and say they have"... as an asexual person, that almost sounds like someone attempting to erase a person's identify.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well it seems that the account (Outlawedredhood) has been blocked and Dean Winchester has been semi-protected. Case closed? Or does the IP need to be temporarily blocked as well? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• This seems like things were resolved. If they are resolved how do we close it? Does someone delete it? Does this section get locked? Avengeramb333 04:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It can be closed (preferably by someone uninvolved), or it can simply be left for the archive bot to grab in a few days. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Template:WikiProject Film

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

---

I have recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Paraguayan cinema task force and I need to modify the Template:WikiProject Film to include what kind of category the articles related to films from Paraguay belong to. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruno Rene Vargas, I think your question is more suited to be asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film rather than on WP:AN which is for administrative matters since it concerns content issues, not editor misconduct or systemic issues. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Paid contributions on fawiki

Afsane1369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. This user was editing and creating articles on fawiki (Persian) in violation of disclosure of paid-contribution policy. All the evidence we have, including user profile on a Iranian outsourcing website named "Parscoders", are in Persian language, but i can mention them here if needed. The user is now blocked on our wiki by User:Telluride. Her contributions in Qarz Al-Hasaneh Mehr Iran Bank are undoubtedly paid and in violation of NPOV and needs to be reverted. please decide what has to be done about this user on enwiki. thanks. --Jeeputer (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:PERM backlog

Hi admins, there is a backlog for file mover and page mover permission. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:113B:3DC7:CF3F:BD3C:E9F3:2240 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I genuinely hate it when something on my list of things to get done today ends up getting "flagged" at AN for not yet being done. Anywho, PGM is clear. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Primefac, this leaves a backlog only at file mover requests. 2402:3A80:113B:3DC7:CF3F:BD3C:E9F3:2240 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

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

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Stale unblock request by user:Megacheez

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.

---

• Megacheez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Anyone want to look at this unblock request? It's the fifth unblock request on a July 2020 block by user: Black Kite following ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1041#User_Megacheez. The current unblock request has been open for five weeks, and the user is still active. Meters (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• No need to consult me if anyone feels like an unblock - WP:ROPE and such like. Black Kite (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Unblocked, with a warning that another indef is likely to be perceived by many admins as intended to be permanent. —valereee (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

user:Peaceful exist and user:GGtt55

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.

---

• Peaceful exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• GGtt55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

From their contributions, both users have been abuse-only accounts. The similarity of their vandalism also leads me to suspect sockpuppetry. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 22:02, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Both accounts have been indeffed, one by me. Almost certainly the same person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Tagged as a copyvio since March

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.

---

Robert Riddles has been tagged as a copyvio since March last year. Is this a record? In October an IP removed the offending text and the notice, but was reverted by Redrose64. What needs to be done to sort the article out? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 11:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look now.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we need the help of @Romfordian:. What is see is that the first version of the article looks like closed paraphrasing of the source [39] and is much shorter than the source. It was written in 2004 by the user who has not edited since 2006. In 2009, the article was somewhat expended by Romfordian. There were no further significant changes until 2019, when an IP marked it as copyright violation citing the above source. But the source is marked as 2018 (and still contains way more text than the article). I would say this is not copyright violation, but may by the text was written by one of the authors of our article who may know and clarify the sitiation.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The editor blanking this article did not list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and therefore it was not seen after seven days. That said, Wikipedia:Copyright problems is heavily backlogged and I am the only admin who reviews these listings on a daily basis. MER-C 12:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP concerned was going through articles removing cleanup tags without explanation. In most cases, the issue that the article had been tagged for had not been addressed in a manner that would justify removal of the tag. To my mind, they appeared to be simple drive-by removals (the opposite of WP:DRIVEBY). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I obviously lack some skills here as I can't find the offending text to either review or rewrite it. I am always careful not to copy text, but to paraphrase or rewrite, with the exception of factual information such as dates, names or similar. There are only so many ways that you can write "Mr Unknown died on 1st January 2022 at his home in Unknownsville", but even in such cases I would always try to rewrite so that the text is never identical. As I cannot access the actual text, and I can't bring the details to mind, I am relying on the comments on the article talk page [[40]] where someone with better knowledge than me has indicated that the question is whether the text that I wrote in 2009 is in violation of text that was published in 2018 which, as is pointed out, would not seem to constitute a breach of copyright. One would assume that the entity that has suggested the potential copyright violation is able to give more information to explain this apparent inconsistency? Romfordian (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the notice as I'm pretty confident this is a mirror. To answer your question about this being a record DuncanHill; articles can be blanked for a very long time, usually several months; there are not enough people working in the copyright area to prevent stuff like that from happening. To anyone who is reading this right now; you are needed in the copyright area. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 22:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Tendering resignation (Xeno)

I have very recently accepted an upcoming role with the Foundation to help facilitate the second phase of the meta:Universal Code of Conduct consultations investigating key enforcement questions. To protect the integrity of internal committee deliberations, I am humbly tendering my resignation from the Arbitration Committee.

Strong community governance is paramount to the ongoing health and longevity of our projects. My goal will be to ensure community concerns are clearly communicated and considered by the drafting committee while working to demonstrate that community enforcement mechanisms can adequately handle the additional burdens that may be placed on the Foundation and project volunteers by public policy changes.

I enjoyed working with last year's committee and look forward to serving the community in this more focused role. I hope that you will be willing to share with me any general or specific concerns concerning the Universal Code of Conduct, especially as it relates to enforcement. I will act as a conduit for community ideas, questions, and change requests.

Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.

–xeno^talk 01:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this

Templates for non-DS/GS bans?

I've closed a couple ANI threads that led to community imposed bans and I can't find documentation anywhere about how to notify the editors. I know that for arbitration enforcement, we have {{AE sanction}} but I couldn't find anything similar for non-DS/GS (i.e., community-imposed) bans and sanctions. I've just been leaving hand-written messages on their talk pages (and may well continue to do so per WP:DTTR), but wondered if there are standardized templates in use that haven't made it into the documentation I've looked at. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There really should be more links from Admin pages to templates that we may need to use, they are not well-categorized at all. The closest I found was Category:Wikipedia community-authorised general sanctions templates and Template:Community sanction. But I had to hunt for them. There should be links on Wikipedia:Administrators to commonly used templates. And there is no information about DS or GS on Wikipedia:Administrators' guide. I hope this helps, Wugapodes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I closed a cban, but there is (IIRC) no specific template, it was always manually written. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Username policy and blocking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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 need a sanity check here. According to WP:U, does a username like Wesley Stinky (talk · contribs) seriously rise to the level of disruptive or offensive in and of itself? I really don't think it's even close, and preemptive blocking is an overreach. Thoughts? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless "Wesley Stinky" is the name of a corporation or something (and according to Google it doesn't appear to be), I agree this appears to be extreme. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not so offensive to justify blocking before any edits; I generally only would report a username before it made edits if the name attacked a BLP (often a Wikipedia admin). Yesterday I saw Poopface888 and waited for a (vandalous) edit before reporting. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Poopface888" (as well as this username) wouldn't be enough to block the account outright, until the user has started making disruptive edits such as vandalism. In combination with the username and vandalism, I'd jump straight to a block, since it's clear that the user's intent is only to be disruptive. There's a difference between usernames that blatantly violate Wikipedia's username policy that should be blocked outright and regardless of whether they edit or not, and usernames that are childish, show a possible intent to troll, and aren't constructive. I don't block accounts simply because their username falls into this category. When I see users vandalizing Wikipedia that also have such a username, it helps me to determine the user's intent - and I go straight to blocking. It all depends on the situation, and the information that I have before me that helps me make the appropriate judgment call. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

If “Wesley Stinky” is so juvenile as to be facially disruptive, you could make great arguments that Bongwarrior and GorillaWarfare are contrary to policy (albeit to a lesser degree). No offense intended of course. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Silly, funny, even moderately racy usernames are just fine by me, and neither of those usernames are remotely offensive. Playground insult/scatological usernames, on the other hand, are not only offensive, they are intended to be so by their creators. In my opinion, an encyclopedia populated by "stinky", "poo", "fart", "bum" and "wee-wee"-type usernames is not an environment that is conducive to civil behavior. You have to draw the line somewhere: I think "Poopface" is clearly on the far side of that line, and "Wesley Stinky", while not quite as egregious, is also clearly over it. Note that they have the option of requesting an unblock: they haven't chosen to take it up. -- The Anome (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but "they have the option of requesting an unblock: they haven't chosen to take it up" is very poor justification. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

neither of those usernames are remotely offensive Says you. And therein lies the problem: excessive discretion in deciding what usernames are disruptive. Someone else might find warfare and killing offensive owing to the loss of relatives in war (you might even argue that a reasonable person would find making light of warfare and killing to be offensive), or drug use owing to the death of family and friends in the drug trade (pardon to Bongwarrior if the "bong" isn't intended to mean bong). Unilateral, prior-to-editing username blocks should be made for non-discretionary reasons, such as including overt harassment towards particular persons, obvious slurs towards any group of people, and otherwise deceptive or disruptive usernames. Non-disruptive profanity, meme-related usernames, and sophomoric humor do not rise to the level of disrupting the project so badly that they must be immediately blocked. That doesn't mean you can't leave a user talk message suggesting they change it, nor does it mean you can't take the username into account when evaluating whether the editor is WP:NOTHERE. But "Wesley Stinky"? Come on man. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The Anome - See the response I made above regarding how I handle these situations. I think the response also applies to your response here. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is an overreach, particularly with an account with no edits nor filter hits at all. We do treat variations of "poop" as blatantly offensive usernames but extending that rationale to "stinky" seems like pearl clutching. It's hardly universally offensive, and can be a term of endearment ([41], [42], [43]). I would've at least waited for the user to edit, and if they were not obviously a VOA I might have suggested they consider choosing a new username. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand I would have blocked Poopface88 immediately, but not necessarily because of "poop". They have neo-Nazi symbolism (88) in their username. So I guess I agree it's a judgement call. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ivanvector - I would not block an account only because it has "88" at the end. Sure, the username also has "poop" in it, but "88" could just be random... Yes, I learned recently that this is a neo-Nazi symbol, but there are thousands of innocent reasons why someone would choose "88" as part of their username, and only one reason (that I know of) as to why it would be bad. I like 88 on a football jersey not because it's has a very horrific and racist meaning, but because the number 88 is the digit that takes up the most of the uniform (compared to say, 89, where a line is missing from what would be the '8'). Sure, if the username was "hailhiter88", I'd be blocking that without question - you had me at "hailhitler", but the number just on its own is not a reason. That would fall into "assume good faith territory". In fact, before I recently learned of how that number has a neo-Nazi meaning, I wouldn't even had thought "assume good faith". I wouldn't have given it a second thought... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The rumor mill once had Ford considering asking them to change the number because of that reason.

They could be a fan of Dale Earnhardt Jr. (or Dale Jarrett, etc.). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with The Anome that it's a judgment call and that it's hard to determine precisely where the line should be drawn, and I have no question that they blocked in good faith. But I do think drawing it such that accounts with the word "Stinky" in them are insta-blocked without any disruption is too far. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't believe someone thinks "stinky" is offensive. Is "smelly" offensive? And unless the username is promotional, group, impersonation or incorporates a racist, sexist, sexual or scatological word, I didn't think accounts were preemptively blocked until they made edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree in this case - I saw it on UAA last night and left it because it IMHO doesn't rise to the disruptive level. (Heck, for all we know "Stinky Wesley" is the user's nickname, and nicknames are explicitly allowed by policy). If I see a "poop" username, it's blatantly obvious they are WP:NOTHERE - and honestly, I'm pretty sure for a lot of the Poop Trolls just seeing their username in the revision history is their satisfaction, so preemptive blocking in those cases is probably a very good idea. But "stinky"? Stinky Pete would like to protest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's unsurprising that different administrators would have slightly varying standards for the types of account names that should be blocked on sight before editing. I would not block for "stinky" alone, but on the other hand, I disagree with Power~enwiki about "poopface" and "poopypants" usernames. The odds of productive editing from such an account are negligible, and I believe that they should be reported and blocked on sight. I would look at a "stinky" account with suspicion, and indef quickly for BLP vandalism, for example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I've come to the realisation that most of those are "fire and forget" accounts for the sole purpose of going "ha ha! 'Poop' is in the revision history FOREVER!". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The odds of productive editing from such an account are negligible My response to that is "so what?" The point of AGF isn't just civility for a collegial environment, but a presumption of good faith unless and until that presumption is rebutted. Okay, someone just created an account with an infantile username. Without anything more, it's not something that 99% of users will ever see, nor is it something that actually harms the encyclopedia by dint of its existence. Even the fact that there's something in a page history (barely anybody looks at these) I don't see as sufficient to argue causes harm to anybody. Yes, remove Nazi and slur accounts. Yes, remove harassment and doppelgänger accounts. Those cause harm to the community at large on their own. But childish humor? What happened to WP:BITE?

Are we also going to start preemptively blocking 14-year-olds? Anonymous editing? "But IP," they'll surely say, "Anonymous editors make productive edits! Here are some statistics used in the perennial discussions about anonymous editors to support their continued contributions!" My response: Where are the statistics supporting the unstated, but necessary, claim that childish humor is an indicator of disruptive intent so severe as to justify an assumption of bad faith? 69.174.144.79 (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree; we're all going to have different levels of judgment when it comes to this situation. In my experience, usernames that fall into the "poop", "butt", "zit", "pee", etc categories either vandalize and cause disruption, or they don't edit at all. The majority of them don't even make edits. There's a difference between usernames that fall into the "hard-block on sight and because of the username alone" category (such as libeleous, harassment, violent, threatening usernames, etc), the "soft-block because of the username" category (such as "mybigbutthole11", "fucktrump", "pussydestroyer66" (I'm sure we've all seen a username like that one... ugh...), and similar usernames), and the "that username tells me that this user is probably going to troll" category. I don't block accounts that fall into the last category. I always just wait until they edit, and once they start being a troll, I'll block on sight. The username in this situation is used in comination with their edits to determine that they're definitely WP:NOTHERE, and I'll block them. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless this is a company or corporation (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), this is way too extreme. This username does not blatantly violate Wikipedia's username policy - not even close. This block should be lifted; I'm quite surprised that this is even a discussion. Unless somebody explicitly objects and with a good reason, I'm going to lift this block. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to that and was half-debating doing it myself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've unblocked the account. This is done with no hard feelings at all towards The Anome. The discussion so far has pretty much said in consensus that the account doesn't violate UPOL and that blocking the account based on the username alone in this situation went a bit too far. I don't want this to turn into a pitfall of a controversy and discussion about "The Anome blocking the account" and "Oshwah for unblocking it on The Anome". However, in the end, someone needs to step in and do the right thing, and I'm okay with being "that person". :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Swarm's closing statement is begging a conclusion, so this feels like a good place to confirm that yes, inappropriate or overzealous admin actions, especially blocks, are absolutely a matter worth discussing here (a battle worth picking, to use Swarm's analogy). Furthermore an admin not responding to an WP:ADMINACCT inquiry for 19-ish hours while they're clearly active (The Anome made 45 visible edits without replying to Bongwarrior's first follow-up before this thread was posted) is also fine grounds for escalation to AN (per the policy: "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions."; emphasis added). Blocking an account with no edits and then retroactively justifying an inappropriate block because they have no edits is just a bewildering twist of logic. Remember that WP:BITE and WP:AGF are widely accepted guidelines. I realize everything that happened here was in good faith and the matter is all resolved but I dislike high-and-mighty closing statements that belittle participants' valid concerns, and this one deserves a dissenting response. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. A mentor once advised me, in reading over a memorandum I drafted, that in too many places I was inserting my opinion where that wasn't my role. I was, as he put it, editorializing. I think closers should avoid editorialization.
    The consensus that the block was inappropriate was pretty clear here. There was also initiative to reverse the block. There was no consensus as to the "line" where a username requires a preemptive block, but one wasn't really sought at the outset. A discussion should be probably be held to determine: (1) what, if any, username situations require an immediate block, (2) the role and allowable degree of individual administrative discretion in determining whether a username situation requires an immediate block, and (3) how edge cases should be handled. This should be followed by an RfC to codify the conclusions in WP:UPOL. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The point of closing a discussion is to provide a summary of the consensus therein, not to pontificate with your own incorrect views on procedure. Can someone re-close it without Swarm's personal comments please. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • To add, my understanding of the discussion is essentially a reaffirmation of the consensus at Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames: avoid biting newcomers and stay well enough alone unless they've edited or the name's mere presence is a danger. Neither seems to be the case here and so the user was unblocked. We don't need to have time-wasting discussions on this because it's already our documented community practice. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I closed with a summary of the consensus here, but it's nothing new nor prohibited to include advice to the community in a closing statement, and I don't think I said anything particularly egregious. Still, to avoid even further dramamongering in what is such a patently uncontentious thread, I will strike that part of my close, if it will really make you guys feel better. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Advice re: would we need a new admin?

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.

---

• Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• عمرو_بن_كلثوم (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as Amr ibn Kulthoum}}
• Fiveby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm trying to stay uninvolved at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, which is fully protected with a lead that has disputed content. Discussion is stalling out over making any changes whatsoever. I am thinking it might help break the logjam if the lead is stripped of all disputed content, then consensus formed to add stuff back in per ONUS. If I suggest this and delete from the lead everything at least X# editors object to, have I made myself involved? I'm the only admin working there, so unless someone else is willing to come in as an admin, I don't want to become involved. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, That is an unusual approach, and its a pretty short lead anyway, I think if you removed the controversial content you'd have no lead. Your course of action could work, but you would need to get consensus to do so, otherwise that's clearly making you involved. I've put the article on my watchlist, and take a look to see what can be done. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, hi there - sorry, I started trying to moderate that talk page, then work got too full on. Thanks for picking up the baton. I think that Ed Johnston has some familiarity with the dispute. FWIW, I agree that a stripped back, basic, uncontroversial lead might be a good starting point. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Bollocks - misfired my ping to EdJohnston, sorry. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage User:Valereee to keep trying to mediate at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan. If possible they should try to avoid editing the article directly. If you think the lead ought to be shortened, offer the 'before' and 'after' versions for review on the talk page and ask for editors to vote. If you want an outside admin to take a look at a specific question you could ping me. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Aye, thanks, all. I'll hang in as long as Levivich hangs in. :) —valereee (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the sales pitch needs work, val. Maybe something like this:

HEY! ADMIN AND EXPERIENCED EDITORS! You've been working hard, you deserve a break! Come and relax at sunny Syrian Kurdistan, where the conversation is ample and you're sure to make new friends. You can read a book (or twenty, there's quite a few to get through), have a drink (or twenty), or, for those seeking something more adventurous, explore the Holy Walls of Text in the ancient Talk Page Archives. There's something for everyone at Syrian Kurdistan! Visit today! Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sold! El_C 17:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, CaptainEek, Girth Summit, EdJohnston, ANYONE. I've already p-blocked two editors from this talk who were POV-pushing. There's one left making the same stale POV-pushing arguments. I am a bit loathe to myself block the last editor who is arguing that side because frankly it feels like one admin throwing too much weight around. Could someone else please take a look in hopes that we can finally make incremental progress here? Or could someone else please come in as an editor and weigh in on the sourcing/content dispute? Or tell me to turn into an editor, and you can become the admin? Tag, you're it! Also someone should give Levivich a goddamn knighthood. —valereee (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added pagelinks for Syrian Kurdistan at the top of this thread. I've also included userlinks for the two people that got partial blocks from the talk page, as well as User:Supreme Deliciousness who I guess may be the person that Valereee thinks is making 'stale POV-pushing arguments'. The dispute at Syrian Kurdistan has been running for a long time, and at some point, I think the interested editors ought to organize their own dispute resolution. When this doesn't happen and the matter falls to the admins to resolve, there is a risk of a random or quirky outcome, since they usually don't know the content. The use of partial blocks from talk is an idea I haven't seen before though I see the logic of it. If you want a more 'classic' way of handling the situation from an admin standpoint you could issue restrictions under WP:GS/SCW to the editors you believe aren't being cooperative and then those bans could get reviewed at WP:AN. But personally I don't object to the partial blocks from Talk. In the past, messy cases like this have sometimes gone to Arbcom, but I see that outcome as a failure by admins collectively to use strong enough measures to deal with things that have run for a long time without resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I don't care about classic but I'd love any approach that works better! :) I really wanted to avoid issuing topic bans. I dislike them and I think they're traps. But the recent RMs make me think that's probably what's going to end up being needed. The two editors I p-blocked just moved on to other contentious articles about the Syrian civil war. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'm new to this topic area and don't have all the (many, probably hundreds) of pages watchlisted but after doing some digging I have concerns about editing on articles well beyond Syrian Kurdistan and even those recent SK-related RMs, into other (non-Syrian) Kurdish-related articles. I think we need to extend the WP:GS/SCW to include all of "Kurdistan" and anything related to Kurds (I believe El C presciently suggested this some time ago). In addition, let's have the community look again at some of the editing that's been going on, particularly since the last ANI reports. We haven't really had a "clean" presentation of the POV-pushing evidence, separate from incivility/bludgeoning issues. Now that the latter is actually under control, the former becomes clearer. I don't like TBANs either, and originally I was thinking someone should file an arbcom case after the new year, but this won't keep until then. There is ongoing removal of Kurdish-related content from so many articles (happening today, yesterday, the day before) that I think we need some kind of "emergency injunction". So I think I'm going to collect some recent diffs and open a thread here and see where that gets us. At least the community can take one more crack at it and if that doesn't resolve the disruption, then I guess Arbcom? Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the GS are so rarely used for actual problems that I doubt it’d make a difference. From what I remember of the logs, most usage of GS is spammers / trolls / obvious disputes, or your typical page protection. I doubt it would help with disputes like this. GS is barely effective as it is. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea what's happening right now as I've yet to review this thread's contents beyond the comment directly above where I was pinged, so this is a general statement only: expanding the SCW GS is problematic because of the narrow timeframe and geography — Kurds in Iran, for example, wouldn't really fit. The reason GS is less effective than DS is because its operation is more diffused. DS has AE, which is a superior forum to here (AN). Also, the final authority for DS is the Arbitration Committee, which as far review mechanisms go, is a more stable proposition than that of the community for GS. Anyway, however we are able to turn the tide, I'm all for that. Please notify me whenever this is attempted so that I could contribute. El_C 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK I will post some recent diffs to a subpage and we can go from there. Levivich ^harass/_hound 23:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee, El C, EdJohnston, and Girth Summit: Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds. I looked for diffs in Dec 2020, then after a bit, I stopped looking for more. The list does not include all relevant editors, articles, or diffs, but it's enough to get the idea. All editors named have been notified. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, El C, Ivanvector, Girth Summit, would it be in violation of a topic ban to post further diffs to the subpage Levivich has created? There is much to add. GPinkerton (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, GPinkerton, it would be. But for my part, I could see myself being amenable to briefly suspending the ban for that page so that you'd at least enjoy some limited participation. But that doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Even if it would be appropriate for me to unilaterally authorize this for you, I'm too unsure as to how to proceed at the moment without further input. And by that I also mean beyond the matter of suspending your ban. Because beyond it, I'm not even sure that the current state of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds and its talk page (especially) makes it the best fit. Perhaps going straight to the Committee, whether via ARCA or a full case, is the way to go. It's fine having an informal evidence-gathering page, but once it also turns into a debate arena, that's when I start having doubts. Certainly interested to learn what others think. El_C 05:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkteron I'd probably defer to El_C regarding the terms of your ban, I'm not sure what the exact restriction is. I can't see it at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, maybe I'm being dense - do you know if it has been formally logged? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Right, that's actually on me, I'm realizing. I mean, the blocking admin is the one who thought up the sanction, but I'm the one who clicked the unblock button once agreement was reached. Grr, that means I have to negotiate that annoying table at WP:RESTRICT — I wish it was more like WP:AEL. El_C 17:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, can I just appeal for it to be lifted as now-redundant, given that my concerns have basically been vindicated? In any case I'm not interested in joining the discussion, I'd just like to merge the diffs in the ANI reports I was blocked for with the diffs collected by others to save everyone going round the carousel yet again. GPinkerton (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I suppose you could, but I would strongly advise against doing so at this time. The agreement you signed up for as a condition for lifting the indefinite block was that the sanction would not be revisited for at least 6 months. That said, if and/or when this ends up falling under the Committee's purview, then I certainly would not find fault with you appealing the sanction directly to them. El_C 21:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I do not think I would conclude your "concerns have basically been vindicated". You were removed from the article because you were so contentious there that other editors couldn't tell what the underlying problem was, and pulling your input out allowed other editors to see that the underlying problem was POV-pushing. That is not vindication. —valereee (talk) 22:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, editors couldn't tell what the underlying problem was ... the underlying problem was POV-pushing ... except by reading my ANI reports that said exactly that! I only mean that the substance of the issues I raised has been recognized and at least somewhat acted on. I will add the diffs unless anyone objects. GPinkerton (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, I'm not seeing an objection, so I'm going to say this has been granted as an exception to your t-ban. But I strongly recommend you lean over backwards to be fair and neutral. Go far beyond what you think is necessary. If there are reasonable complaints, it's likely a similar request for an exemption wouldn't be granted in future. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I'm just going to add what has already been on ANI + a few some similar edits that have occurred or I have found in the interim. GPinkerton (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, It's Pink-er-ton, like John Pinkerton and Allan Pinkerton! GPinkerton (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, typo burn. Please don't sent the Pinkertons after me! El_C 21:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, yeah that's uncle Allan, fled to the States in disgrace. GPinkerton (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Haha, no doubt. Way to tarnish your abolitionist creds, drunk uncle! El_C 23:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, it would be, but like EI_C I would be amenable to relaxing the restriction for that single page and its talk. It might be a good test of your ability to contribute in the topic in way that doesn't impact articles or article talks. I'll warn you that there's already contention at the talk over whether the page is presenting only one side, so one of the things you might consider focussing on is edits that lean the other way. Sort of a devil's advocate position for you. :) —valereee (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Welp, that didn't work. —valereee (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I've told GP to stop with the additions at that page. Really disappointed. —valereee (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, Like I said, I only added what what has already been on ANI. Bear in mind that some of my additions have been subsequently edited, and in a way which I think demonstrates exactly what is going on. GPinkerton (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton Did you or did you not write "is taken aback at GPinkerton's refutation of his claim that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" does not appear in the book (it does and is explained), and suddenly changes his mind on "Martin Dr Martin" the erstwhile worthy academic in respectable Paris, whose PhD-thesis-turned book was published by the University of Utrecht Press, but who in Act 2 now appears a radically changed character, a mean scholar [he's actually a professor] whose book is now merely personal opinion and tainted by association with the Center for Kurdish Studies (sounds very neutral) [emphasis original] which, in the space of less than twenty-four hours, has now become unspeakably biased and unusable for reasons that remain unexplained"? —valereee (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I wrote that weeks ago. Do the diffs provided not support this interpretation? GPinkerton (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, you seem to have added it into the page in question? I literally could not care less whether the diffs support the interpretation. What I care about it whether the language is confrontational. Why would you even consider posting this there after we urged you to be neutral? —valereee (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, how would you have worded it? GPinkerton (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, to make it neutral, as was requested of you? I'd have taken out all the snark and included only that which was necessary to provide context, and the simple fact you asked the question is astonishing. I think you need to stop commenting in this discussion now, it's a violation of your topic ban. —valereee (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, things are getting really interesting here. We have t-banned user GPinkteron who just came back from being indeffed on the condition they stay away from the Middle East post 1492 topics. Well, they never respected that condition and are still trying to game the system by WP:Canvassing in several articles. They canvassed here while negotiating a t-ban and again here as soon as the indef block was lifted. They were warned by Valereee here, still they are coming back to the topic in full force on this board. Also, maybe it's time that someone look into the three arbitrary blocks dropped around by Valereee to shut down any other opinion on the Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan page. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Valereee: I admire you saying that you are one admin throwing too much weight around. This is really the case with the three blocks you gave at that page, and the fact that you and Levivich have admitted not having prior experience in the topic makes things worse, with all due respect. Levivich has been focused on using recent literature (snapshot of 2020) and neglected/ignored the century long of history in that area since the border was created. Now, that article sounds like a PKK/PYD propaganda website. Furthermore, your expectation from GPinkerton to see the other side is way too optimistic given their history of personal attacks and POV-pushing in several articles, not just Syrian Kurdistan. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

عمرو بن كلثوم, you are welcome to ask for an unblock. I have zero objection to other admin unblocking any of you if you'll agree to stop trying to use sources that aren't recent scholarly work. That's my current goal: everyone at that article is sticking to recent independent scholarly works. There's even a handy list of such works pinned to the top of the page, a list collected from suggestions by multiple editors. If you know of other recent scholarly works that belong on that list, you can argue for their inclusion. What you can't do, and what SD did yesterday, was bring in a 1946 CIA report and argue that it is a reliable source for anything other than what the report itself says. As I explained to SD at their talk, other editors having to explain this ad nauseam wastes those editors' time, and that is disruptive. —valereee (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I very strongly object to valereees comment about "There's one left making the same stale POV-pushing arguments" I'm discussing in a calm way at the talkpage, everything I have said is backed up by reliable sources and I am not going to edit war with anyone at that article. The article/talkpage is calm now. I also strongly object to the incorrect blocks of عمرو_بن_كلثوم and Fiveby which were both unfounded.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness, I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish here. An unfounded claim about an action you claim is unfounded (word salad!) seems like a bit of a non-starter. Just seems a bit silly for you to even bother expressing such a stark disagreement with valereee's blocks when you provide zero substance. Maybe it's a sign of the times that I need to spell this out, but: zero substance → zero traction. El_C 01:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Please keep discussions on content to the article's talk page.

Supreme Deliciousness, you literally have just argued for the nth time that the current lead sentence, which contains disputed material that editors have would have every right remove except the article is fully protected, is "more neutral" than the proposed one. For comparison, the current lead sentence is Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojavayê Kurdistanê‎), often shortened to Rojava, is regarded by some Kurds and some regional experts as the part of Kurdistan in Syria. The proposed lead sentence is Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria surrounding three noncontiguous enclaves along the Turkish and Iraqi borders: Afrin in the northwest, Kobani in the north, and Jazira in the northeast. Syrian Kurdistan is sometimes called Western Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojava Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun sets'), one of the four "Lesser Kurdistans" that comprise "Greater Kurdistan", alongside Iranian Kurdistan (Kurdish: Rojhilatê Kurdistanê‎‎, lit. 'Kurdistan where the sun rises'), Turkish Kurdistan (Kurdish: Bakurê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Northern Kurdistan'), and Iraqi Kurdistan (Kurdish: Başûrê Kurdistanê‎, lit. 'Southern Kurdistan'). You have literally been arguing for weeks now that Syrian Kurdistan "isn't a place", that "all sides and all views" must be present in the lead sentence. You haven't budged from that, even when policy and scholarship have been presented to you, and I believe that while you're working in good faith, you believe what you believe and can't accept what the scholars say, and the result is well-intentioned POV-pushing. It is not an unfair description of what you've been doing at that article. —valereee (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Why are only scholarship mentioning "Syrian Kurdistan" relevant to you? Why are scholars using other terms for the area not relevant to you? The talkpage is to discuss disputes, and as long as the discussion is civil, then there isn't any problem. I already said that I'm not going to engage in any edit war over the issue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC) Supreme Deliciousness, no, there's also WP:CIVILPOV, which is still disruptive. To be clear, it's nothing to do with what's relevant to me. I am not arguing with you about sourcing or content. I am telling you what I am seeing: one editor, when presented with a preponderance of sources using the same term for an area, listing other phrases used to refer to it in various contexts and using that to insist that until all authors refer to it in all contexts in a single way, Wikipedia must continue to present it as "some people say" instead of "is". What I'm telling you is from the point of view of someone who really doesn't care what the lead says, this isn't a reasonable standard. —valereee (talk) 13:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC) If you google "Syrian Kurdistan" then obviously that's what your going to find, so you need to google something else to find other names for the area. Who recognizes a "Syrian Kurdistan" ? Which country? Which international organ? We have scholary sources that say that the term "Syrian Kurdistan" is "mythology" and "imagined community" and was rarely used before 2012, so why should "Syrian Kurdistan" be presented as an undisputed official name for the area? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

ARC or ARCA?

It seems to me the only question remaining is whether (1) this dispute is submitted to Arbcom in the form of a full case request at WP:ARC, which means Arbcom would be the one taking any enforcement action, or (2) this dispute is submitted to Arbcom at WP:ARCA seeking authorization of DS in the topic area (whatever the scope may be), which means admins would be the one taking any enforcement action. I'm leaning #1 because I don't see a bunch of admin saying "We'd totally take enforcement action if only we were authorized" which is when #2 would make sense. Initially I wasn't crazy about a full arbcom case, but I've come to believe it's the only choice. What do others think, esp. admin? Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Now it should be clear to everyone what and who the problem is (/are), I think the immediate issue could be overcome with a few judicious bans for incorrigible POV-pushing. Whether this needs an ARC or ARCA to deal with the issue in future is not something I have an opinion on, but would support either and prefer and ARC. GPinkerton (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

this edit should tell anyone all they need to know about this issue. GPinkerton (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Is ARCA valid? I thought ARCA was to amend or clarify cases ArbCom has ruled on, but I don't think it's ruled on this case or area, so there's nothing to amend? They surely could decide to close a case by motion and enact DS, but I personally think doing so is generally a bit lazy and they should consider a dispute in full to ensure DS is actually the right tool for the job.

Recognising the concern about GS's effectiveness I raised above & the issues El C detailed, if admins already know what they want to do in this area, but they don't feel the tools are there for them, then maybe it's indeed worth a shot at creating a sub-section proposing to extend the SCW sanctions to Kurdistan (OR just changing it to "all pages related to Syria or ISIL, broadly construed" -- there is precedent for broad authorisations like this, see WP:ARBIPA, and this broad route is perhaps clearer and more future-proof). At least in theory, I think GS is equivalent to DS in terms of admin power (minus deletion), and easier to enact. It could SNOW close in favour so not much time wasted if it doesn't help, but if so that might suggest this is nuanced enough for a full case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel like I keep going around that circle myself, unsure which way to go: expand GS, request DS, request a full case, just post a bunch of TBAN proposals at ANI? Right now I'm thinking that it's not really fair or feasible to ask admin or non-admin editors to take the time required to go through all the diffs to figure out if a TBAN or other sanction is justified. That thankless task is probably best laid on arbitrators' shoulders, because they were foolish enough to get themselves elected for such tasks. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree on that score, but perhaps it also couldn't hurt to try the admin route one last time. GPinkerton (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe ping in the admins who are working in this area (El C, valereee et al) and see if they’d be willing and confident in taking GS actions if the option was clearly available to them? If maybe, not much is lost by passing an amendment and seems worth a try? If not, then the arb direction seems the only option, but also is ArbCom even able to deal with diverse WP:CIVILPOV pushing (which, from the above, I gather is the main concern here)? I dunno, but the essay would lead one to think they aren’t. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

For those who wish for direct Committee adjudication and enforcement on participants of the latest dispute, the workload of a full case is one path. Those who are more concerned with the topic area, overall, are free to request for DS to be authorized by motion (which need not be deemed inherently "lazy," I challenge). Myself, I have no real preference, as I don't really intend on contributing too intensively or extensively to either one. Also, can someone please fill me in about why GPinkerton is suddenly discussing the dispute directly, here, as well as contributing to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds? I realize we had discussed maybe allowing them to do so at some point, but I was unaware that a decision has already been made. Wow, GPinkerton, you are keeping me busy tonight... El_C 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

El C, [44] and [45] GPinkerton (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That’s why I say generally. The Horn of Africa seemed a good case for a motion route, but here there seems to be a lot going on, and not mainly socking. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, thanks — gotcha. ProcrastinatingReader, sure, that isn't an unreasonable assumption to make. But I do note that last time I encountered disruption in the topic area, it did not involve any of the latest participants or what they currently dispute — it was more on the linguistic front of how Yazidis view Kurmanji (as Ezdîkî, and so on). Anyway, socking in that dispute was totally out of control, prompting me to protect tens of articles. El_C 05:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@El C: How would you describe the scope of the relevant (disrupted) topic area? It's not just Syria and it's not just Kurds... I keep coming back to "the Middle East", which seems overly broad, but maybe not. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, my preference is for it to encompass anything having to do with the Kurds, anywhere. Kurds in Germany? Yes. El_C 06:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I think it should be framed in whatever way the Palestine issue is dealt with, only with more countries, more disputed homelands, and more millions of people involved! Unsurprisingly, it also touches on the most recent war in the Caucasus. GPinkerton (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. I think the SCW GS already covers anything which, like that, is a direct product of the civil war (although that specifically is more broadly covered by WP:ARBAA2). Anyway, some ARBPIA and IRANPOL overlap is also to be expected. But, regardless, I think the Kurds are the true heart of it, again, without there needing to be one specific geographical locale. El_C 06:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton, what in the world are you doing? This entire ARC/ARCA discussion is a vio of your topic ban. You asked for and received (temporarily) permission to add to the diffs page. You did not ask for permission to contribute to this discussion. I understand the confusion, but stop now. —valereee (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@El C that would be my fault. You'd said you were amenable, GS said they'd defer to you, I said I'd be amenable also, and when there were no objections I told them they could add diffs to that page and warned them to "lean over backwards" to do it neutrally, a warning they didn't heed even a tiny bit, so I told them to stop. I don't think we should repeat the experiment. I think they may have been confused about whether it also meant they were welcome to participate in this discussion. —valereee (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Would also support a case concerning Kurds in a broader way anywhere.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile we are discussing how to present the Kurdish issue to the ArbCom, there also exists WP:NATIONALISTS (an essay) which covers quite a wide spectrum of the dispute we had last month at Syrian Kurdistan. To upgrade this essay into a guideline might also help.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I get the sense that, unlike my own aim at closing gaps in existing sanction regimes, others here may be after what effectively is asking the Committee to upgrade a GS (SCW) into a DS, mainly for more effective enforcement. Which, if that's the case, it should be clearly noted. My view is that there are gaps in WP:ARBPIA, as can be seen with pages such as Kurds in Israel (there are almost a quarter of a million of these) or the Kurdish American Caucus; gaps in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics, as can be seen in such pages as Kurds in Iran and Iranian Kurdistan for anything pre-1978; and finally, gaps in WP:SCW, involving any disputes which may have risen to the fore because of and are now somewhat intertwined with the Syrian Civil War, so as to make invoking its GS more challenging — can't really recall the specifics of this example, but I vaguely remember there being a conflict recently over historical demography data (or internal migration policies, or both, I forget) well preceding the civil war. Anyway, coming across as pretty much only seeking to upgrade one sanction regime with another, could be the downside of a Motion. But, if participants go the route of a full case, then they can say: 'the SCW GS has proven insufficient to resolve this particular dispute. We require Committee counsel and/or intervention.' Which, on its face, is a perfectly legitimate request to submit. El_C 19:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, then we probably better go for a case. New year is here and now I would have the time. Levivich also mentioned that a case would probably the only solution. I'll open a new discussion at the Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds to gather issues to be discussed, the diffs can still be added at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds until we agree on how to present a case.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It might be helpful if an admin or three would look at the AN/Kurd subpage and say whether or not the various complained-of-edits are or are not disruptive and should or should not continue. Editors need to either stop doing the problematic edits (if consensus is they're disruptive) or stop complaining about them (if consensus is that they're improvements or at least not disruptive), because both the edits and the complaints appear to be continuing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I would echo this. As someone who is being accused of being too close to this, I'd sincerely appreciate some more eyes. —valereee (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You are not too close, Valereee, if that is the accusation then it is faulty. But I'm not sure that it is. What Joe Roe is saying —and I agree with him— is that a solitary admin should not be instituting a sourcing requirement as part of a sanctions regime, especially considering that the only one (I think) presently existing on the project is WP:APL, put in place by the Committee itself, and WP:MEDRS, which exists as a guideline and has seen ample use in the last year in conjunction with WP:GS/COVID19, for example. Anyway, I hope you could see the problem: admin says 1946 CIA source is no good — content decision? Admin says no pre-2000 sources, thereby excluding 1946 CIA source — legit GS decision? Speaking for myself, I would not have done that, and I'm saying that as someone who wishes to strengthen your hand, hoping that you will continue administering the topic area. You're allowed a misstep. Myself, I've never instituted a sourcing requirement as part of a sanctions regime — in my mind that is a community (like with MEDRS) or Committee (like with APL) matter. Somewhat coincidentally, I've been engaged in some APL admin work lately, and found myself a bit surprised that its sourcing requirement has not really been invoked or even mentioned by anyone (except for when I, myself, brought it up somewhat in passing). Totally anecdotal, still a bit curious, seeing as pretty much all they do is argue over sources. As for having another admin stepping in to assist with the Kurds evidence subpage, that notion might be moot, seeing as GPinkerton says that he will be filing an arbitration request imminently. El_C 07:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C, oh, I have zero problem with us deciding this wasn't an okay solution or not an okay way to implement a solution! I was just throwing shit against the wall to see what might stick. If I keep working there, which I thank you for your vote of confidence, I'll just have to see what else I can come up with. Maybe opening an RfC on the question, now that I've got enough people's attention. :D

I still think saying a 1946 CIA report is not reliable for anything but what the report itself says is a policy statement, not a content statement, and I'll argue that one anywhere and with anyone. But I'm completely fine with a single admin instituting a restriction like this one not being the correct way to solve this problem, and I actually don't even consider it a misstep to have tried it. Doesn't work for the community? That's cool, no harm no foul, let's find something that will work for the community. —valereee (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also I did actually ask at WT:GS about this. I really don't consider it a misstep, even if it's eventually overturned. It was an attempt to creatively solve a problem, and I'm never going to avoid trying creative solutions, even if they ultimately fail. Willingness to risk failure is necessary for innovation to happen. We need to be willing to risk it, and as a community we need to encourage such risk-taking. —valereee (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, you said: "is not reliable for anything but what the report itself says", but at the SK talkpage you do not allow the French census source when that source was used to say what it itself says: [46], it was presented as being the French census in the article. But with your source restriction, it was vetoed out of the article by Levivich using your new rule. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure, Valereee, but I do still think that being adventurist like that was a misstep. Because it does seem kinda out there for one to take it upon themselves to impose the sort of restriction which otherwise requires community and/or Committee consensus. A restriction which, again, seems to have only been implemented twice on the project: first, with MEDRS, and secondly with APL (and that's it). As for the status of that 1946 report itself, I've had instances that as an uninvolved admin, I would say that though I find this or that source generally unreliable for this or that purpose (which, within reason, I think is prerfectly fine for an uninvolved admin to opine over), I'd still allow participants to take it to RSN or launch an RfC for further confirmation (as opposed to having my own assessment serve as a final decision on the matter). Since, ultimately, it is a content decision. Though I suppose if usage of such sources is seen to be grossly out of step with RS conventions, then IAR-ing it may be okay (which may well be the case here, I don't really know). Still, the danger with this approach is that it could easily become a slippery slope. El_C 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. :) I have no problem with us disagreeing on the value of trying creative solutions or whether this was a misstep. I said in the section at WT:GS that I was going to try it out, meaning "and see if anyone objects". When SD expressed concern at my talk, I encouraged them to open a section here, as I considered it a completely reasonable concern. I just think worrying about whether something completely reversible represents a misstep is not worth it. I'm more likely to be cautious about things that are irreversible or leave marks. I think we're having a really productive conversation about this idea, and that's at least partially because I was bold. But I completely respect your differing opinion, it's completely reasonable. Er, not the slippery slope part. :) —valereee (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was (hopefuly) referring to Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_usage! Also, I don't think seeking community input on the GS talk page was necessarily the best fit — as far as talk pages go, it is rather inactive. A query here, at AN, would have been better, I think. Though I suppose it doesn't really matter now. Still, for future reference... Anyway, onward and upward! El_C 19:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You know, in normal articles, I'd agree. I'm not really a huge risk-taker. But based on the beginnings of this convo, where I was basically BEGGING for someone to come in and help because I felt like I was one admin throwing too much weight around and suggesting a creative solution that people questioned as a good idea but also no one wanted to help find a better idea, and based on the alternative solutions posted in the other thread that normally are great ideas but to anyone familiar with SK are clearly not workable (take the literally dozens of sources to RSN for a declaration of whether X trumps Y in each of probably hundreds of cases, or "everyone" -- that would be Levivich -- just ignore the POV-pushers (that would be three editors who've occasionally declared "consensus") who keep arguing and arguing and arguing that lower-quality sources should be included when multiple higher-quality sources are available. Because why? Because those lower quality sources say what the POV pushers want us to say. I mean, I guess the answer is to p-block them and keep them blocked. Or maybe p-block them and offer them a condition for unblocking: you may only suggest recent scholarship as a source at that article. I don't know, @El C. I'm just trying to keep Levivich from burning out, because if he does, we're going to have to just full-protect that article indefinitely and walk away. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a good time to set up my Patreon account... Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, Valereee, the thing is that GS (or DS) articles are not normal pretty much by definition, so I'm not sure that distinction holds. And fully protecting articles indefinitely isn't really something we do on the project. Certainly, if certain contributors are editing disruptively, responding with p-blocks makes sense. And then it's fine setting whatever unblock conditions an admin sees fit. The problem arises when a sourcing requirement gets imposed as a page-level restriction pretty much in perpetuity, for everyone. Big difference there. El_C 20:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In all seriousness, though, upon starting to edit this article about a month ago, the first thing I had to do was to prove that Syrian Kurdistan existed. That proof is in Talk:Syrian Kurdistan#"Syrian Kurdistan", which anyone can see was many hours' work. (The preceding conversations are in the archives and go back months, and are clearly many dozens if not hundreds of hours of editor time.) This is kind of like starting to edit The Holocaust and the first thing you have to do is prove to other editors that The Holocaust happened. What the actual fuck? is my most-honest reaction to that.

The first sentence of Syrian Kurdistan is now Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria surrounding three noncontiguous enclaves along the Turkish and Iraqi borders: Afrin in the northwest, Kobani in the north, and Jazira in the northeast., sourced to five recent academic works. This very basic description took months to get into the article. Those five sources just happen to be books published by academic publishers in the last six years that Levivich has access to without having to spend any money. If you can believe it, that's how easy it is to source this basic statement, and how long it takes to get such a basic statement into the article. (Imagine if "The Holocaust happened during World War II" took months to get consensus for.) There is a ton of scholarship available about Syrian Kurdistan, and just some of it (not all) is listed at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan#Best sources for this article.

What's coming up is expansion of the article, including content (cited to those same academic sources and others) about Kurds having lived in Syria for a long time, migration of Kurds from Turkey to Syria in the early 20th century, and repression of Syrian Kurds by the Assads and Ba'ath party in the last half of the 20th century. If we can't get to "Syrian Kurdistan is a Kurdish-inhabited area in northern Syria..." without massive disruption, then we are really in trouble when we start having to discuss these other, more complicated and controversial aspects of the topic. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, Levivich, I don't really like the Holocaust analogy. Those five sources just happen to be books published by academic publishers in the last six years that Levivich has access to without having to spend any money — also, what is up with referring to yourself in the 3rd person. Kinda weird. Oh well. Anyway, codifying some of the basics with a dispute resolution request (like an RfC) could be the way to go here. Then it pretty becomes a done deal, at least for a while. El_C 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't like the Holocaust analogy either, when GPink first made it. After reading like 20 book chapters and journal articles over the past month, I've come around. For example, a Google Scholar search for "Syrian Kurdistan" returns over 1,000 results [47]. Suggestions that Syrian Kurdistan "doesn't exist", or that Syrian Kurds don't exist, or that they're really migrants from Turkey (...the Syrian Baathist regime's claim that most of the Kurds in Syria were refugees and migrants from Turkey... [48])... this is racism (same source: ...there was no place for Kurds within Syrian Arabism; the Kurds were either foreigners or traitors or both, and linguicide became policy. Baath plans soon extended to building an “Arab belt,” expelling Kurds living within 15 kilometers of Syria’s borders with Turkey and Iraq. The project was never completed, partly because not enough Arabs could be persuaded to settle. Syrian 'Arabization,' although no less malevolent or racist, was less effective than its Iraqi equivalent under Saddam Hussein (Allsopp, 24–28, 234 n. 3).). The issue here is racist POV pushing and what's to be done about it. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a better and closer analogy is the old canard that Palestinians are actually Jordanians because the West Bank used to be part of Jordan. An editor who argued this, or who suggested we not have an article called "Palestine", or if we do, we say in wikivoice that Palestine is an idea some people have but not a real place, or we say that "Palestine is the Jordanian-inhabited part of Israel"... none of that would fly for five minutes, and rightfully so. Nobody would tolerate a discussion about whether or not Palestine or Palestinians "exist". Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Levivich, I agree that that wouldn't be tolerated. But it also isn't realistic to approach editing through moral abstractions and equivalencies, because one is likely to end up dissapointed. The fact is that Palestine and Palestinians are far more apart of the general zeitgeist than the Kurds are, perhaps because the Palestinian diaspora has the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a singular-ish locus. Whereas, my sense is that the history of the Kurds in Syria is far more opaque. And even among Kurds, probably second least well-known, resting just above Kurds in Iran, with Kurds in Iraq being second most well known and Kurds in Turkey being most well known. But I digress, and I'm not sure going on about my vague impressions is that useful. Anyway, I'm just trying to be pragmatic about what is likely to be the path of least resistance. You may find it distasteful, even outright objectionable, to hold an RfC about the basics, but once that's done, then you can put the result at the top of the talk page (like in the form of a FAQ, for example), and then you don't need to deal with it. At least not for a long while. El_C 23:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying about an RFC. Like the one about whether the US supported the Shah or Khomeini in the Iranian Revolution, or whether communism is a type of totalitarianism or authoritarianism, or the one going on now about whether it should be "bantustan" or "enclave". "Distasteful" and "objectionable" maybe, but more to the point, a waste of time. In each case, burning up valuable editor time arguing the obvious in order to placate a clear minority of editors. But perhaps RFCs burn up less time than the alternatives. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

As El C said/implied above, Levivich's point here is becoming emotional and political rather than fact/evidence based. First, the blocking threats and blocks dropped by Valereee against Supreme Deliciousness, Fiveby and myself really scared away/shut down at least another couple of users from contributing at the Talk page or here and limited the discussion at both fora. The weird policy invented by Levivich (and enforced by by Valereee) that only recent scholarship is to be used in that article further supports his politically-motivated POV-pushing behavior in this article. I am really surprised to see an editor with his history slide that way and make statements like the ones above (and in the article Talk page) about older scholarship and other things. I don't think anyone here disagrees that Kurds (just like any other people) deserve their equal rights and to be treated fairly. Well, the "Syrian Kurdistan" article is not about human rights or mistreatment of Kurds. It's about a land that Levivich has decided to show as Kurdish land as an undisputed fact, rather than Kurdish-populated/inhabited area with lots of other groups. He has removed most references to the history of this land during the 20th century. He talks about a racist Ba'athist plot and myth of Kurdish immigration to Syria, but scholarship (old and recent) does show that most Kurds came from Turkey. Here are some examples (sorry for the length, but this is my first comment here :)):

• Benjamin Thomas White (2017): Armenians and other Christians escaping Anatolia; Kurdish insurgents evading the Turkish military; Assyrians fleeing Iraq: all took refuge in French mandate Syria, where they joined refugees who had arrived, before the French, during the First World War.
• David McDowall (2004) -a Kurdish studies expert -: The government believed that 'At the beginning of 1945, the Kurds began to infiltrate into al-Hasakeh governorate. They came singly and in groups from neighbouring countries, especially Turkey, crossing illegally along the border from Ras al'Ain to al-Malikiyya. Gradually and illegally, they settled down in the region along the border in major population centres such as Dirbasiyya, Amuda and Malikiyya. Many of these Kurds were able to register themselves illegally in the Syrian civil registers. They were also able to obtain Syrian identity cards through a variety of means, with the help of their relatives and members if their tribes. They did so with the intent of settling down and acquiring property, especially after the issue of the agricultural reform law, so as to benefit from land redistribution.' Official figures available in 1961 showed that in a mere seven year period, between 1954 and 1961, the population of al-Hasakah governorate had increased from 240,000 to 305,000, an increase of 27 per cent which could not possibly be explained merely by natural increase. The government was sufficiently worried by the apparent influx that it carried out a sample census in June 1962 which indicated the real population was probably closer to 340,000. Although these figures may have been exaggerated, they were credible given the actual circumstances. From being lawless and virtually empty prior to 1914, the Jazira had proved to be astonishingly fertile once order was imposed by the French mandate and farming undertaken by the largely Kurdish population.... A strong suspicion that many migrants were entering Syria was inevitable. In Turkey the rapid mechanisation of farming had created huge unemployment and massive labour migration from the 1950s onwards. The fertile but not yet cultivated lands of northern Jazira must have been a strong enticement and the affected frontier was too long feasibly to police it.
• Jordi Tejel (2020):

Nevertheless, Kurdish political parties have never set out to challenge Syrian national borders. In the 1920s, Kurdish activists turned their eyes toward Turkish Kurdistan, their region of origin.

• Storm (2005): The majority of the Kurds in Syria are originally Turkish Kurds, who left Turkey in the 1920s in order to escape the harsh repression of the Kurds in that country. These Kurds were later joined in Syria by a new large group that drifted out of Turkey throughout the interwar period during which the Turkish campaign to assimilate its Kurdish population was at it highest.
• Tejel, Jordi (2009): The mandatory authority's attitude towards Kurdish refugees evolved from one of rejection in 1925 to one of encouragement to settle in Jazira, and to a lesser extent in Kurd Dagh. If before 1927 there were at most 45 Kurdish villages in this region, by 1939, they numbered between 700 and 800 agglomerations of Kurdish majority
• French geographer Robert Montagne in Etienne de Vaumas (1956): (translated) We are seeing an increase in village establishment that are either constructed by the Kurds descending from the mountains [Anatolia] to cultivate or as a sign of increasing settlement of Arab groups with the help of their Armenian and Yezidi farmers.
• John Hope Simpson (1939): under the conditions of peace and security established under the Mandatory authority, some 20,000 Kurds have settled in the Upper Jazira
• John McDowall (2005): From 1920 onwards, however, many Kurdish tribespeople arrived, fleeing from the the Turkish armed forces particularly during the pacification of the tribes, 1925-1928. Although the precise number crossing the new international border is unknown, it was probably in the order of 25,000
• French geographer Pierre Rondot (1936) describes the area as follows: The mountain range of Armenia and Kurdistan falls rather sharply to the south, beyond Mardin, Nusaybin, and Jazirat ibn Umar, towards the steppes of Jazirah, domain of the Arab nomad. It is the border of two worlds: while the Arabs, great nomads whose existence is linked to that of the camel, could not enter the rocky mountain, the Kurds envy the edge of the steppe, relatively well watered and more easy to cultivate than the mountain, where they could push their sheep and install some crops.

Levivich has stripped the article of most of its its history. Levivich has removed French mandate archives census numbers for the area reported in a PhD dissertation under the pretext it is not peer-reviewed. Well, may be he doesn't know this, but a PhD from a respected university (This one is from Utrecht University) does pass through external examiners (at least two) that are more rigorous than many journal peer reviews. The other thing Levivich didn't know is that the advisor for the PhD candidate is Martin van Bruinessen, who is cited to support the "Syrian Kurdistan" term adoption (that's a different discussion, may be for another time). Levivich removed a map by Sir Mark Sykes (yes, the author of the Sykes–Picot Agreement) and another British map showing ethnic distribution of the area in question in the early 20th century. As you can see we have many reports (I can provide more) and maps from western sources (not Syrian, or Arab, or Turkish, etc.) that show the origin of most Syrian Kurds. It's not really a conspiracy/racism theory as promoted by some users. Still to be clear, the Syrian Baath party came to power in 1963, and used this immigration history as a pretext to discriminate against Kurds. Levivich is welcome to add this to the article, but the history and context are also very important and need to be discussed in DETAIL, using all RS available (such as the ones above). Finally, drawing comparisons with Israel/Palestine and Holocaust is really irrelevant and misleading. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• So, yeah. That's what it's like at that article talk. —valereee (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom

• NB now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan GPinkerton (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Admin introducing source restriction

Admin Valereee has introduced a source restriction at the Syrian Kurdistan article:[49][50]

According to herself, she doesn't know if she has the authority to introduce such a restriction: [51]

Does anyone know if she has that authority? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Remedies does not list page-level sanctions except for 1RR, so I am not sure. On the other hand, the source restrictions seem reasonable to me, and may be we should have a discussion and amend the list of sanctions.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe it is reasonable, because there are older historical reliable sources that should be able to be used and discussed at talkpages without restriction and without fear of getting banned for even discussing them. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

To wit: 1 2 3 —valereee (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I understand the impulse, but this is an overreach. The GS for the Syrian Civil War only authorise editor sanctions, not page ones, and more importantly, saying what sources are acceptable is very much an editorial decision not an administrative one. Excluding sources written before 2000 is going to significantly affect the article's content – maybe for the better, I don't know the topic area well enough to comment, but it shouldn't be up to one admin to make that call. – Joe (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe, just FTR, not trying to argue with you: not excluding other sources altogether. Excluding them for disputed content. Like what the area is called, which has taken now approximately months to come to a decision which, if we'd only been including recent scholarship, there'd have been no need to argue about for months using recent news coverage that occasionally called it "Kurdish areas of Syria" or whatever. There is ample recent scholarly work. —valereee (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  You can easily see how this could be gamed, though: somebody finds a historical detail they don't like, appropriately cited to a pre-2000 source, edits it out and boom, now it's "disputed" and the bar for re-adding it is much stricter than projectwide policy supports. More to the point, your comments here and on Supreme Deliciousness' talk page really sound like an editor debating content, not an admin discussing conduct. I get that this must be an extremely difficult topic area to do admin work in, but maybe it's time to declare yourself involved and let someone else handle it? – Joe (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

"somebody finds a historical detail they don't like, appropriately cited to a pre-2000 source, edits it out and boom, now it's "disputed"... Joe, thank you so much for this comment, this is EXACTLY what is going on right now, large amount of important historical information has been removed from the Syrian Kurdistan article because some claim the sources are old and with this new restriction its basically impossible to restore it, you get blocked for even trying to discuss a source at the talkpage.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• When an editor repeatedly tries to add a secret internal 1946 CIA report to the article to support that "Kurds had equal rights, received fair treatment", and argues it's an RS, that is not a content dispute, that's a conduct issue. When the editor argues that it's a reliable source because it's a secret internal government document, that's not a content dispute, that's a conduct issue.

  Also, there is no important information about Syrian Kurdistan for which there is only pre-21st-century sourcing available. Doesn't exist. This is a global political hotspot we're talking about here, not some obscure topic. I do not see how it could be gamed. I do see, however, how our processes have been gamed in the absence of these editor and page restrictions.

  I can't disagree more strongly with your suggestion that val is or should declare herself involved. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The existence of a restriction doesn't mean it must be enforced. If it's obviously gaming, no admin needs to enforce it (notwithstanding someone would have to revert it and put themselves in the line of fire for that). If it gets gamed, the restriction gets altered or removed as appropriate, but it could well be that nobody thought of doing so until now. Anyway, maybe the real solution here is a variation on the standard boilerplate "consensus required" provision (WP:CRP)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The existence of a restriction doesn't mean it must be enforced. Yes, actually, it does. If we make restrictions and don't enforce them then there is zero point in having made the restriction. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  We don't block everyone who passes 3RR. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, @Primefac. Admins use discretion all the time. I've many times decided not to enforce something because I thought the editor simply needed some information. I've probably informed editors for various infractions more often than I've dealt out some enforcement. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Shorter reply here: I remember a case where El C asked an editor to self-revert multiple times on usertalk & AN (or some noticeboard) before giving them a block. Nobody criticised that. I think it's totally proper for admins to use their brains when enforcing policy or restrictions - they aren't robots. The best resolution in any case is an editor rectifying themselves, not a block/ban (which has ime never changed someone's attitude), and should be encouraged. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I should probably clarify - I misinterpreted the statement to mean "we can create a restriction and then ignore it"; obviously IAR and common sense exists. I was saying that we shouldn't be making sanctions if we don't plan on enforcing them in the future. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Let me just add that I think a word with an editor who breaches a restriction is a method of enforcement. Sometimes it's highly effective and sometimes utterly pointless. But so are other methods of enforcement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich: An editor repeatedly adding a source against consensus is a conduct issue. Whether that source is reliable in the first place is a content issue. Some of valereee's recent comments seem to be veering towards debating the latter, but if she doesn't consider herself involved that's her call. What you say about pre-2000 sources might be correct (although it seems rather implausible to me; have you checked all of them?), but a sweeping statement like that is not something that should be turned into a page-specific policy, enforceable with blocks, by an individual admin. – Joe (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I dunno, I very, very strongly disagree with your source-agnostic approach. It's not like, and this is how I perceive you approaching this problem: "Well, Editor A has a URL, and Editor B has a URL, therefore it's a content dispute." It matters what sources editors are bringing into the conversation. A source like a 1946 CIA report is so obviously not an RS for "Kurds were treated equally" (which, by the way, is the exact opposite of what all modern scholarship says) that anyone claiming a 1946 CIA report is an RS is exhibiting CIR problems. Can you imagine if I went to a PIA article and tried to include a CIA report that said Palestinians had equal rights? How would that go? Would I even make it to AE before being TBANed?

  "Whether the source is reliable in the first place" is not a content issue, if the source obviously fails to meet our PAGs. Somebody trying to include primary sources, unreliable sources (like blogs), etc., that's a conduct issue, not a content issue. A content dispute is only a content dispute if RSes are on both sides of the dispute. A dispute over whether an RS is an RS is only a dispute if it's in good faith. Someone arguing that Stormfront is an RS is not engaged in a content dispute; that's a conduct issue. Someone arguing that court records are RS, same thing. Someone arguing that a 1946 CIA report is RS... same thing. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe how in the world is saying "a 1946 CIA report is not a reliable source for anything other than what that report says" a content issue? That is a straight statement of policy, used in context. The statement of policy used in general would be, and I quote, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Is that the kind of thing you meant when you accused me of being involved? —valereee (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Valereee: As RoySmith has also said below, assessing the reliability of a source (or body of sources) is a content issue. Even if it's a straightforward application of policy – interpreting and applying content policies is something we do with our editor hats on, not our admin ones. Regardless, I didn't intend my comment above to be an accusation and I'm sorry if that's how it came across. What I tried to suggest that you consider for yourself whether you've become involved in these disputes. You would be far from the first admin to begin intervening in a contentious topic area as a neutral admin but become involved over time, and some of your comments here suggest a degree of burnout with the area that for me would also be an indicator that it's time to step back from it. It's up to you, and since I've clearly rubbed you the wrong way, I'm not going to press the issue further. – Joe (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether "a 1946 CIA report is not a reliable source for anything other than what that report says" is a content issue when "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" is literal quoted policy. The sentence could be used as an example of that quoted policy.

  I am so neutral about that article that I still haven't actually bothered to read it. But a well-intentioned and experienced editor -- an admin, no less, someone who had to know what they were doing -- has questioned my neutrality, and continues to question it, and IMO that stops it right there. You don't have to "press the issue further." You already pressed it exactly as far as you had to. So please @Joe Roe I hope you'll go help fill in there for a while, as the article is pretty desperately in need of admin help. You break it, you bought it! :D —valereee (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe, I completely disagree that I'm involved, but if even one other well-intentioned experienced editor thinks I am, I consider that to be reason enough to stop working as an admin in a particular place. I hope someone else will come in and start working there, because at this point I've been basically it. Pinging @CaptainEek and @Girth Summit who are the other admins somewhat familiar there, but Joe, you should seriously consider getting some familiarity there before you make that kind of an accusation. —valereee (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Also, @Joe Roe, diffs. —valereee (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Here's a fun game! This is what Talk:Syrian Kurdistan looked like when I showed up with absolutely zero interest in editing in that area. I still have zero interest in editing there. I have zero opinion on what the article should look like. But if the simple fact I've tried to admin in a difficult place makes me involved, Joe, maybe you'd like to help out there? Until you've been there for long enough to actually have some expertise, in which case you'll then be involved. Whee! Next up? —valereee (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, I hit on this because I was needing to block so many editors at Syrian Kurdistan for disruptive editing because they'd brought lower quality sources, including most recently Supreme Deliciousness with a 1946 CIA report, and they wanted to argue and argue and argue and argue those sources were just as good as the ample available recent scholarship. And I do mean ample -- there's an entire list pinned at the talk page of like 20 recent scholarly books published by academic presses. I wanted those editors to be able to return to editing -- they're well-intentioned, they just have such a strong bias that apparently even SD with their 20K edits can't see that, no, a 1946 CIA report is not a reliable source for anything but what the report itself says and certainly not for determining what is "historically impossible" because that report doesn't agree with a 2020 book by an eminent scholar. And we don't use news reports to argue that a scholar is wrong. Sorry, do I sound like I'm at my wits' end? I am a bit. Like I said, I wanted to let those editors return to editing, and making this declaration seemed like it might be a way to do that, because if they start bringing a 90-year-old primary document in there again and start arguing for its reliability again I am going to have to block them again. We have ample scholarship, and that's the most reliable source we can find. We don't need recent news coverage except for recent events that aren't covered yet by scholars. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• The comments of Ymblanter and Joe Roe above are exactly why I said last year we shouldn't have WP:GS subpages with their own text that go out of sync with each other. That text has no basis in consensus. It was unilaterally added by one editor years ago, presumably to be more helpful than linking to the main DS page. The fatal flaw with this is that it falls out of sync, especially since nobody cares to maintain those pages. There was community consensus to impose sanctions akin to WP:ARBPIA except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based. So the idea that WP:GS/SCW doesn't authorise page restrictions is just not true.
  Would this page restriction be valid for ARBPIA / in the ArbCom DS system? I think yes. I've seen many pages carry DS/GS restrictions of this sort. It's unconventional, but it could be appealed and overturned by AN if unreasonable. The policy for placing page restrictions says: Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page [...] page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. This seems to fit squarely within those parameters. If this isn't legitimate, then we should overturn a bunch of other page sanctions and maybe clarify that it isn't acceptable in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I don't think this sanction would be acceptable under ARBPIA or other ArbCom-authorised DS either. You would have to ask the current committee for a definitive answer of course, but for what it's worth I drafted the current version of ARBPIA. Which brings up a related point on why community general sanctions are a bad idea: with ArbCom sanctions, there is always an explicit, codified procedure to reference and clear routes for clarifying any ambiguities (AE and ARCA). With general sanctions, you have to refer back to a much less structured discussion (or the closer's interpretation of it), and clarifications have to be done at an AN free-for-all like this one. – Joe (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Didn't Arbcom institute source restrictions in the Poland and MEDRS cases? (And weren't you on at least one of those committees?) Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I voted against the source restrictions in Holocaust in Poland, as it happens. And I don't think there was one in Medicine (if that's what you mean)? Regardless, ArbCom is a committee with extraordinary powers. Not one administrator. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that there is no procedural error here, in response to comments above. It's allowed under the rules of GS and such a restriction is not unique (example). Whether this particular restriction is acceptable, well, it's the same process for any restriction or GS sanction: it could be appealed and overturned by AN if unreasonable (that would be this discussion). All of these are done by "one administrator" under the auspices of DS.

As for the rest of your comment, I used to agree but I'm not sure I do anymore. I don't agree with the idea that there are many different processes for DS/GS around, and that closers' interpretation is relevant -- the rules for all of them stem from WP:AC/DS. The wording on any WP:GS subpage has no consensus, and was never part of any GS discussion iirc from the last time I read them over. Discussions authorising either name an ArbCom case to copy (which authorises "standard discretionary sanctions"), or uses the text "std. community authorised general sanctions" (the same thing) - the very first one explicitly mirrored ArbCom. Second, I'm not sure I agree that arbs are a much more stable proposition to handle the DS system. See AN's talk page and protection log for a recent example why (by no means the only example, simply a convenient one). If we don't want admins to do this, then ArbCom should amend the WP:AC/DS wording to make that clear.

As for the principles, and on content decisions vs admin decisions, DS always seemed to toe the line (a skeptic may argue that it's the point, so the Committee doesn't have to do so itself). Moratoriums on bringing forward RfCs, literally stopping people (sometimes for years!) from even having a discussion to build consensus are content decisions too, but we still accept the validity of the concept. Generally, bludgeoning people with crappy sourcing is disruptive. The Syrian Kurdistan talk page is too much for my head so I don't have the knowledge to know what's necessary there, but ime I've found valereee to make sound and appropriate admin decisions resulting in toxic editing areas becoming less toxic, and (generally) I don't think it's appropriate for this board to unnecessarily micromanage an admin who tries to resolve an intractable dispute that few admins want to touch. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• WP:GS authorizes page restrictions. SCW authorizes a page restriction (1RR) and the log includes other page restrictions in years past. Page restrictions including source restrictions have been used in other GS and DS areas. This so called "restriction" isn't a restriction anyway, it's just a formalization of what is already written at WP:RS AGE. Of course this is allowed, rather explicitly by our PAGs, seven ways to Sunday, I'd say. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:AGE MATTERS doesn't say sources published before 2000 aren't reliable, not even close. If I recall correctly (I haven't the patience to go and check), where page restrictions are authorised, and they're used to restrict the sources that can be used, the common practice to enforce a guideline with existing consensus (e.g. WP:MEDRS or WP:SCIRS) more strictly, not invent one out of whole cloth. I think this restriction would be more defensible if it did that. Unfortunately there's no WP:POLRS, but how about disallowing primary sources per WP:PSTS? From my reading above that seems to be just as much at issue as the age of the source, and has a better grounding in policy. – Joe (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

    The most important part of the source restriction is academic v. nonacademic. This is the same restriction that is in place in Holocaust in Poland, and is the part of WP:MEDRS (which I guess is a community consensus-based restriction, not a GS or DS restriction?). It's hugely helpful in those two areas, and it will be hugely helpful for Syrian Kurdistan (it should be applied to all geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East, IMO).

    The age thing is very important specifically for Syrian Kurdistan. And that's because it is a 20th century concept, and there has been a civil war since 2011, and Kurdish forces have (more or less) been controlling Syrian Kurdistan since 2012. On the article talk page are quotes from sources about how any discussion of "Syrian Kurdistan" before 1920 could be "misleading" (academic's words), how "the war changed everything" (another academic's words), and how things have developed rapidly over just the past nine years (multiple academics state this explicitly). We even see scholars themselves changing their scholarship year-to-year as they learn more information. On the talk page now, for example, is a source cited where the 2005 edition says Turkish immigration happened mostly in the 20th century, and the 2008 edition changes that to mostly 1920-1939. (This turns out to be an important difference.)

    Academic publishers are publishing multiple books per year on the subject; often the same group of scholars are publishing or editing every single year, (just about Syrian Kurdistan, nevermind Kurdistan in general). These are listed on the article talk page. Another major book (the new edition of McDowall 2004, which was the leading work until the war in 2011) is expected in April. "Syrian Kurdistan" is barely discussed in academic works (although it's there, it's just few and far between) before 2011, because (per academic sources post-2011), Syrian Kurds were an oppressed minority until 2011. So it's hugely important that our readers are told about current scholarship, not scholarship from even 10+ years ago. And "current" means 2020, 2019, 2018. Very current.

    So editors have included 19th century sources; 1901 Chambers encyclopedia; all to argue that Syrian Kurdistan "doesn't exist" (well, duh, there was no Syria in 1901, it was the Ottoman Empire then). And a 1946 CIA report that says Kurds had equal rights, well... not when all the books written in the past 10-20 years say otherwise.

    A source restriction that says recent scholarship is preferred over older scholarship or non-scholarship is a necessity for editing this topic area. Otherwise I have to spend my time talking about why we go with an Oxford book from last year over a 1946 CIA report. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Your not accurately describing the situation, right now Valereee is not allowing a good source in the article, that is undisputed by scholar sources, because you dispute it based on her new restriction: [52], not because any scholar sources dispute it. Also, 1901 Chambers encyclopedia was not in the article to argue that Syrian Kurdistan "doesn't exist", but because to show a historical view of "Western Kurdistan" and it was attributed to the source. It was very important historical information that belonged in the article that you removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

These two issues are more examples of using old sources in pursuit of POV pushing. So the 1901 Chambers encyclopedia is used to argue that "Western Kurdistan" is something other than "Syrian Kurdistan". Well in 1901, "Syria" (the modern state) didn't exist, it was "Ottoman Empire". So it doesn't matter what "Western Kurdistan" was in 1901; it matters what those words mean today. All the modern academic sources say "Western Kurdistan" refers to Syrian Kurdistan. We are not going to include a 1901 encyclopedia to say that Western Kurdistan is somewhere else. That's ridiculous, and no editor should have to waste their time discussing such ridiculousness. Despite this, I've wasted a lot of time arguing this in the "Syrian Kurdistan" and "History" sections of Talk:Syrian Kurdistan.

The other sources you're referring to are 1950s French population surveys used in an attempt to say that there is no such thing as Syrian Kurdistan or Syrian Kurds because Kurds in Syria are actually Turkish. Copying population tables from a 1950s survey is using a primary source, it's UNDUE, and there is a plethora of modern academic scholarship that talks about the very complicated issue of Turkish Kurd migration to Syria (and whether that migration happened during the French mandate 1920-1946 or after the modern Syrian state was established). This is exactly the kind of issue where we have to look at modern scholarship and not population tables from the 1950s. Again, not something I should have to waste my time arguing. It's absolutely stupid to be preferring 1950s scholarship to 2020s scholarship. WTF, I say, again.

All of which is not as bad as the 1946 CIA report saying Kurds had equal rights. That's a double WTF. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely matters what the view in 1901 was because it shows that Western Kurdistan was in a place in today's Turkey and today it is regarded as a place in Syria, so the reach of the "Western/Syrian Kurdistan" entity has expanded over the years, the same in the USA article there is info about the country expanding from the east and then taking over new areas like Texas and California in the west. This background info is important for the reader. But because of this new restriction Valereee has added its almost impossible to restore this valuable information into the article, because you will "dispute it" and the conversation is shutdown, the exact same thing that happened with the french census numbers.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

SD, it's only impossible to include the information if both: 1. the information is disputed and 2. no scholar within the past twenty years covers it. If no scholar within the past twenty years is even covering the information, and if other editors are disputing that information, why is it actually valuable in a WP article? —valereee (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, Levivich disputes information based on your editing restriction about old sources, he isn't disputing it based on that the info is incorrect. And you allowed this:[53]. So he and others basically have veto power and can lock things out of the article by doing this. Despite the fact that no modern scholar sources disputed the sources or content. There could be several reasons for why an old source has information and a new source does not. As long as a new source isn't disputing the information of the old source, then that old source and its content should not be banned from the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

SD, you have the exact same veto power as any other editor. You can require other editors support with recent scholarship any assertion you dispute. —valereee (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any restriction to use an old source as long as its reliable and no new source disputes its content. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• It's sad that the situation has come to needing this sort of thing, but it has, and I see this restriction as cromulent. (Also editors who are arguing that a 74-year-old primary source should override current-year academic secondary sources should really step back and ask themselves if they should take a wikibreak.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• These sanctions are authorized. WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS provides: "The sanctions imposed may include (...) any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." This includes measures restricting the kind of sources to be used. Because this is not an appeal against these sanctions, I'm not expressing a view about their merits. Sandstein 20:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The part you are citing is about "sanctions on any editor". I had a look there before leaving my first comment in this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  As above, nobody should look to WP:GS/SCW, or any of the unmaintained GS subpages for that matter, for the rules of the sanctions regime. The wording was unilaterally added (likely) intended as a summary. It is not the wording from the community discussion authorising the sanctions, and it has no consensus. One editor's copyediting omission does not create policy. WP:AC/DS applies, and imo denying so is wikilawyering and not helpful to the matter at hand. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  However, WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS is linked from the editnotices. The editnotices are often the only source of information for the users. If the linked text of WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS does not reflect consensus, which very well can be the case (I have not checked), the whole system is broken, and the usage must be immediately stopped. Whether the consensus was that page-wide restrictions beyond 1RR can be used is a different discussion, but if this is the case it must be reflected in WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS before we can continue using it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The GS system has never been maintained. Before me, the last editor to take any interest in it was RGloucester in 2015 (!), who added the summary text to various more subpages, in an effort to avoid confusion. Which, in hindsight, seems to have been a mistake because it's now out of sync, not just with AC/DS but with other GS subpages too, yet people are using the summary as if it were consensus. As for templates, the talk notices link to WP:AC/DS. You will find lots of similar inconsistencies throughout GS. Nobody cares enough to clean it up. I proposed deletion here last year to prevent such confusions but nobody really weighed in. The page is equivalent to an information page, it doesn't really matter what it says.

  If you want the run-down, see the page when the closer created it, which says clearly: The remedies for WP:ARBPIA apply, which at the time (and now) were/are standard AC/DS sanctions. The very first community DS regime (as far as I can see) was here where the proposal literally links to WP:AC/DS and the close defined "Community Authorized Discretionary Sanctions". It's not helpful for us to spend text debating that WP:AC/DS does not apply, or that the summary is the regime, when neither are true. This kludge is probably evidence that we need to start simplifying, not trying to overcomplicate this. GS as a whole is a textbook example of why we should follow DRY. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, I disagree. In at least one case (not the one we are discussing) I was actually the editor who summarized the RfC and established DS in a certain area, and I followed RfC, not assuming that what it meant to install was identical to standard AC/DS sanctions. Moreover, it can not be identical, because, as correctly noticed above by Joe Roe, for standard AC/DS sanctions we have AE and ARCA, in addition to AN; for community-established DS we only have AN, which works very differently from these two boards. Again, this probably should be properly discussed, may be we need an RfC, but it is clear that the system of community-established DS clearly currently has some serious flaws at the technical level. And when I mention editnotices and that they link to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS (and not to AC/DS, quite correctly), it means that WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#GS has to contain correct up-to-date information. If it doesn't, it means DS can not be applied in any valid way. This would be similar to, I do not know, users randomly modifying the text of ARBPIA because they think it better expresses what the ArbCom wanted to impose. And I regard the question on whether the page-wide source restriction may be imposed under DS as valid. We are a policy-based mechanism, and if something is not in the policy, or at least not in the written policy, it is not policy-based, whatever reasonable it might be.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, some common sense hoops are necessary to make sense of it. The full close of the discussion (I wanted to avoid quoting it, because this section is already long enough) is: There is a consensus for imposing community sanctions on all pages related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed. The sanctions themselves will be precisely the same as they are for WP:ARBPIA except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based. Although no one addressed the duration, I will make them indefinite like the ARBPIA sanctions. That can, of course, be changed by community consensus. Finally, Arbcom sanctions cannot normally be undone by another administrator but have to be appealed to Arbcom. In a parallel fashion, the sanctions here can also not be done by another administrator unless appealed to WP:AN. Which covers your for standard AC/DS sanctions we have AE and ARCA, in addition to AN concern.

  This would be similar to, I do not know, users randomly modifying the text of ARBPIA because they think it better expresses what the ArbCom wanted to impose. Editors do exactly that (in good faith, of course). Nobody has cared enough about the subpages enough to revert changes to what you think is the 'official text'. If you look at the GS subpages, you'll find many such edits of the text just last year. The policy is simple: WP:AC/DS applies, with different appeal venues, and different templates + GS not permitting deletion, whereas DS does. This principle is not confusing at all, and it's far simpler to understand than thinking we have a dozen different community sanction regimes + 1 ArbCom one (which is pointlessly confusing imo). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The principle may not be confusing, I just do not believe it has a basis in any policy. Thanks for citing the closing statement, it indeed says the sanctions are similar to ARBPIA (which, I believe, exvludes the source restrictions, but I would need to re-read ARBPIA before stating this clearly). The sanctions I have instituted were not similar to ARBPIA, in particular, there was no provision that any article can be pre-emptively extended-confirmed protected (an ARBPIA provision). If we ever had an RfC saying that community imposed DS are in all respects similar to AC/DS I would like to see this RfC (ideally codified as a policy). Absent this, I believe the statement to be incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Ymblanter, you are right, the page I linked to covers only editor-specific sanctions after a warning. Accordingly, the sanctions at issue here are null and void. What's more, as noted above, we have no documentation that the wording on that page was adopted by consensus by the community. I share the concerns above about the practicability of this kludgy sanctions edifice. Sandstein 22:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I could've edited the page one week ago to fix this 'omission' (as others do on other GS subpages), nobody would've reverted it, and so the sanctions would be 'upheld'? That would be absurd. Reaching such a conclusion dismisses any consideration of principles here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I am afraid if we want to continue with DS all DS pages must be cleaned up and protected at the admin level.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Even WP:AC/DS isn't protected, and this wouldn't fix the issue. The solution is simply to delete the separate log pages and have one central WP:AELOG-esque log, so we don't have 12 separate unmonitored summaries. I suspect you won't find enough editors with interest to look into it and vote in an RfC though, and there is also likely no consensus for revoking these sanctions. In the inevitable outcome of nothing being done in this section, we still need to have some idea of what the norm is for these sanctions, and that thing is WP:AC/DS not only because the community consensus authorising the sanctions was clear of that, but because it's the only option that actually makes sense. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with WP:GS as opposed to WP:ACDS (as seen in topics listed at T:DSA, and so on) is its haphazard and inconsistent nature. WP:GS/COVID19, for example, specifies wide-ranging sanctions available for page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. But I suppose that is an anomaly in the GS realm...? El_C 22:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

But I suppose that is an anomaly in the GS realm...? all the newer pages have it, eg WP:GS/MJ. When I asked QEDK who created MJ, the base for COVID19, they said their intent was intentional so that the structure remains similar to WP:AC/DS ... also keeping GS more in line with acceptable practices. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's news to me. Mind you, the fact that there is a Michael Jackson GS is also news to me. But I note that the relatively recent WP:GS/IRANPOL, for example, does not have that addition. Again, haphazard and inconsistent. El_C 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement from me. It's ended up a total mess. I suspect Vanamonde93 just copied a different subpage, one that happened to be outdated, as their base. The next person to authorise a GS will also randomly pick one of the subpages to copy, which could be COVID or it could be IRANPOL. I just don't think it's accurate to think that the community authorising the sanctions actually expected to authorise a sanctions regime different to another, or the big one everyone is used to. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader and El C: I personally thinking mirroring AC/DS is better than coming up with customizable solutions - albeit plausible, as most GS-es do have addendums, the idea is basically what I said above (also I cannot find where I said that, I'm pretty sure that you're right about me saying it, but I seem to have forgotten). I think the sanctions with that statement are merely codifying what is already the practice, except for the ones that are modeled on a specific ArbCom case like ARBPIA or ARBIPA, most of them are directly based off the over-reaching mandate of AC/DS. --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There's the letter of the law and there's the spirit. I dipped a toe into the Syrian Kurdistan area a couple of months ago after an editor came to my talk page asking me to block an editor they disagreed with and I didn't last a day trying to parse the dispute going on across article talk pages. I commend Valereee for working in this troubled area of the project and I remember her request on this very noticeboard (see above) mid-December asking for some help from additional admins. And she is correct, if you try to understand the landscape of this subject well enough to recognize who is acting responsibly and who is pushing a POV, that doesn't make you involved (especially as she admits she holds no interest in the subject). Multiple editors working in this area have received indefinite and partial blocks in the past month so clearly admin help is required. I understand Valereee's solution may not be backed by policy but it's better than the anarchy that existed there earlier where there was edit warring going on. But what I think Valereee really could use is a second or third set of admin help in the trenches. Familiarity with ethnic geopolitics, preferred. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Liz, the reason why the topic area was troubled was because of disruptive behavior from Konli17 who is now a blocked sock and GPinkerton who is now banned (only temporarily) from the topic area. As soon as these two problematic accounts was removed from the topic area, it was calm. This editing restriction on older sources was not needed and has only led to valuable historical information being removed from the article, and now its impossible to restore it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Hear, hear! My most recent thoughts about this topic area, added to a section further up in this very noticeboard (originally authored by Valeree on Dec 17) may also be of interest: diff. El_C 23:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I rarely wade into the sanctions arena, so I can't say anything intelligent about whether this particular action was authorized. I do, however, want to respond to a few random points raised in the discussion above.

First, I'm uncomfortable with an admin passing judgement on a source (or class of sources). When wearing my admin hat, I try really really hard to stay out of content disputes, and whether a source is reliable or not is clearly a content dispute. If there's a question about a source which can't be resolved on the talk page, WP:RSN is the next step. I could see a sanction that says something like, "If the reliability of a source remains unclear after a talk page discussion lasting X days and involving Y editors, it should be posted to RSN".

Next, I don't think the example given, Template:Editnotices/Page/Coronavirus disease 2019, is relevant. I would say that preprints are NEVER WP:RS. For those who don't have experience with scientific research, when you write a paper and submit it to a peer-review journal, you sometimes share preprints with your colleagues. A preprint is just a draft of the paper before it's been accepted. It's had no review. It may end up getting accepted, getting accepted with revisions, or rejected outright. It's basically a self-published source, i.e. WP:UGC. It should go without saying that preprints are not acceptable sources in any article.

Lastly, admins absolutely should be exercising discretion. It's relatively easy to figure out if a rule has been broken. The hard part is deciding what to do about it. That's why admins get paid the big salaries.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

In fairness, that is exactly what admins are tasked in weighing when it comes to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations (contrast that with the much more vague Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#Neutrality_and_sources, for example). Now, whether that provision can be seen to have opened the floodgates is, perhaps, a question worth pursuing. El_C 23:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith passing judgement on a source (or class of sources) IMO is about policy. I'm not sure how you can argue that commenting on whether scholarly work is more reliable than a 1946 CIA report is a "content dispute". That's an astonishing thing to say, IMO. I don't care what article we're talking about. Our policy says scholarly sources are the gold standard and primary sources are generally to be avoided. How in the world is stating that at an article talk a content dispute? Surely I must be misunderstanding you. —valereee (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, Well, like I said, I don't get involved with sanctions much, so consider what I said more a general commentary on how the universe should be, rather than your specific action. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Page-level sanctions were authorised for this topic area per the second sentence of Bbb23's closure of the discussion which imposed them at AN. The first line of the close is "The sanctions themselves will be precisely the same as they are for WP:ARBPIA except for the topic and the fact they are community-based rather than Arbcom-based." Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Well, beyond the question of whether page-level restrictions are authorized for this or that GS (or should be for all of them or none of them or some of them, whatever), I am getting the impression that many here wish to distinguish between sanctions that include, say, a GS-invoked protection from one which imposes a sourcing requirement, it being a fairly recent thing on the project (I think). El_C 04:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  El C, I believe something very similar has been done with DS a number of times before. I did something similar with the pseudoscience sanctions a number of years ago. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't read everything, but agree most with Liz and ProcrastinatingReader. I support innovative attempts to solve disruptive editing especially in areas where the community has encouraged administrators to be proactive (i.e., GS topic areas). This is certainly not the usual page restriction, but it's not unheard of, and the GS regime is so badly maintained that hermeneutics of random pages and revisions is unlikely to give us a firm answer on whether this has consensus. IMO, it's better to ignore the specific GS text and just help valereee workshop a restriction that works.
  I think the main problem people are having with the specific restriction is the date cut-off. While reliable vs unreliable and secondary vs primary are largely policy questions, questions like when a source is too old is largely an editorial decision that admins should be wary of. Not sure why the particular year was chosen, but I trust valereee knows enough from working in the area to know where to place the line to limit disruptive editors without "thumbing the scales". I do appreciate the concern that this is a unilateral admin action verging on an editorial decision, so while I don't necessarily share the same degree of concern as (for example) Joe, I do agree that a better restriction is possible. That said, I don't think we should just remove the current restriction without giving valereee something to work with since she's been working really hard to administer that area with little help. I think RoySmith's proposed restriction of If the reliability of a source remains unclear after a talk page discussion lasting X days and involving Y editors, it should be posted to RSN is on the right track to a compromise. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes, I chose that timeframe for no other reason than that the books that had been mentioned and pinned in the first post and agreed on by editors working there as reliable were in that time frame. I am so totally open to figuring this out from a community perspective. Do we need an RfC on what sources can be used for this article? Great! I'm there! I just am very concerned about the editors trying to work this article having to explain over and over and over and over and over again that, no, a 1946 CIA report cannot be considered an RS for interpreting what is "historically impossible." It's just not fair to require that level of patience. We need something, and this was what I came up with, and I'm totally open to whatever else works. I just want something that works. —valereee (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Valereee, That's why I suggested WP:RSN. RSN is staffed by folks who have invested more time than most people on understanding our RS policies, and the decisions that come out of there are well respected as authoritative and neutral. Pointing to a RSN rating of "blacklisted", "generally acceptable", or somewhere in between is usually (but not always) all it takes to bring closure. If that one particular source keeps coming up, and assuming the RSN folks give it a thumbs-down, create WP:CIA46 as a redirect to that discussion and link to that in the edit comment in which you remove the source for the Nth time. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @RoySmith, so the editors at SK go to RSN for a discussion every time someone brings in whether a contemporary news source trumps recent scholarly work, or whether a decades-old primary source ditto? Because that kind of thing is happening there daily. RSN discussions can take weeks and never even get a close, especially if at least one participant is willing to put up walls of text. That isn't a reasonable expectation of editors at SK, IMO. —valereee (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  For a reality check, @RoySmith, take a look at the edits in this discussion by Supreme Deliciousness. The sources they're referring to are a 1946 CIA report and a 1901 encyclopedia. Take a look. —valereee (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, your not presenting the situation accurately: "whether a contemporary news source trumps recent scholarly work, or whether a decades-old primary source ditto"... that's not what you said before or what the restriction you added said, you yourself said that even if no scholarly source disputes an older source, the older source will not be allowed in the article if any editor disputes it for any reason: [54], and Levivich used your editing restriction, to lock content out of the article. Despite the fact that no source whatsoever disputed the older source he could do this with your restriction. So you gave him and others veto power to remove important non-disputed historical information from the article, and they did, and the information is now gone. And its impossible to restore it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• If it's just that one source and there's obvious consensus to exclude it, you can prohibit its inclusion, though I'm guessing it's not that easy. If the problem is having the same discussion over and over, I've seen El_C use discussion moratoria to allow closing redundant discussions. One I recall was at Talk:Kyiv and limited requested moves to one every six months or something. Maybe ask them about how those have worked out. You can also ask editors there to document consensus discussions like at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus. I don't think I've seen it used for enforcement, but you probably could limit edits or discussion of already decided matters based on that editor-curated (rather than admin curated) document. At the very least it helps editors quash perennial discussions by linking to that document. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes, same thing I just said to RoySmith above: check the posts just in this discussion from Supreme Deliciousness. That's what editors at SK are dealing with, with literally dozens of lower quality sources being brought forward. It's why I thought, "Maybe we just only consider highest-quality sources?" —valereee (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Honestly, if that's a representative example, I don't think page restrictions will work out the way you expect (PR gets at it below but I haven't read teh whole thing yet). It seems like the problem is too much discussion, but as you're noticing we're not really equipped to handle that kind of thing. I think the better strategy is to meatball:DissuadeInteraction: Bring the other party to the direct personal conclusion that the relationship is not worth her time, rather than hoping they will make the indirect conclusion that because it is not worth your time is not worth her time. Provide a path for them to follow towards this conclusion. Instead of setting up page restrictions that directly prohibit the problematic behavior, set up ones that allow but frustrate the problematic behavior until the editor decides it's not worth their time.

  So in this case, I would imagine some kind of consensus required/enforced BRD restriction with a flow that goes something like this: a blundering editor wants to add/remove a source that has been discussed ad nauseum or is clearly improper. The blundering editor follows the restriction and makes the bold edit, and it obviously gets reverted. If blundering editor does nothing in response to the revert, problem solved. If blundering editor reverts the revert, block or warn as appropriate (then repeat until problem solved). Here's the key: if blundering editor starts a talk page discussion as the restrictions require, then everyone should just ignore them. After a couple days of the cold shoulder you can close as no consensus. If blundering editor still tries to add it again or keeps restarting the same discussion over and over, block or warn for disruptive editing, problem solved. After a few rounds of this they'll either wind up blocked or get the hint, either way the disruption is stopped without having endless, useless discussions. Of course, this requires buy-in from article regulars, but it shouldn't be too hard of a sell. Either way, I think any solution will need buy in from the regulars to build some social controls. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes, there aren't enough editors at the article to make that work. No one wants to work there. There's no "everyone" to ignore them. There's just a lone voice in the wilderness, plus one admin trying to help. —valereee (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Initial ideas:

  • If the talk page is functioning enough such that it can get consensus on issues, you can use a modified 'consensus required provision' with a moratorium on future discussions if attempts to get consensus fail. However, if the talk page is not functioning then this can be abused to just block any change.
  • You can also consider a restriction along the lines of Template:Editnotices/Page/Ripple (payment protocol) (bullet #3), a blanket restriction on primary sourcing without getting affirmative consensus. But this is more limited than the current restriction, since it won't cover most dodgy sources I imagine.

  Both are not as good as the current restriction. If I understand correctly, I think the main concern of some above with the current restriction is that it blocks the use of certain sources, and it also blocks discussions on those sources / attempts to gain consensus. So maybe:

  • A modified "For disputed (via reversion) sources older than 20 years, editors must gain an affirmative consensus on talk before reinstating the source" (rough wording). Obvious downside: it will encourage spamming the talk page. Though, I guess the answer to unreasonableness to the point of disruption is topic bans.

  ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Though, since the issue here seems to mainly be talk page disruption, and not article disruption, I'm not sure any idea that doesn't also block discussion actually solves the problem. Moratoriums are one way - allow a discussion once, and then block it for a while. But for dozens of sources, that doesn't really work. RfC seems to be the cleanest route? But I still think leaving the current restriction in place is the best outcome, as I cannot think of any better restriction or general solution, and removal is not a good outcome for the talk page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I do not have the stomach for reading all of the diffs here, but I wanted to note a few things. First, ProcrastinatingReader's point about discrepancies is noted, but per IAR and NOTBURO, we should be enforcing the spirit of GS, not the letter of a specific closure statement. As such, I think a page-level restriction is perefectly fine.
  Second, in a contentious area, there is not a clear delineation between content and conduct, and we cannot base dispute resolution on the idea that anything to do with source reliability is a content matter and outside admin purview. Joe, I'm quite surprised to see that's what you're saying. A sourcing restriction eliminating a priori unreliable sources is entirely reasonable.
  Third, I'm not entirely certain a 2000 boundary is the best way to achieve this, but a 1946 CIA report is already verboten for contentious material in Wikipedia's voice per WP:PRIMARY, and so I'm not certain why we're debating that.
  Fourth, we cannot reasonably craft a restriction requiring editors to go to RSN; RSN does not have the capacity to deal with a flood of posts from contentious areas. Mandating affirmative consensus on the talk is better, but still messy.
  Fifth and last, I think Valereee deserves thanks for even attempting to handle this hot potato. We have far too few admins handling our contentious areas, particularly topics outside the anglosphere; please, let's try not to reduce that number further, even if we end up deciding Valereee has over-reached. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Huh. [55] The GS wording is older than I thought it would be. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 5#Why recent academic sources may be of interest. Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  I sincerely hope some other people are reading the link Levivich posted above. I have zero issue with the community deciding this restriction isn't the right one, tweaking it, deciding it should be removed altogether. I took a risk, and I'll deal with the fallout. But someone needs to go help at that article. —valereee (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Just FTR, I did actually open a section at WT:GS and ask before I did this, it wasn't totally just my own wild hare. —valereee (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• NB now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan GPinkerton (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrator needed to close high-visibility, time-sensitive requested move

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

---

The requested move discussion at Talk:2021 United States Capitol protests#Requested_move_6_January_2021 needs administrative closure. Usually these run for seven days, and usually I would post at WP:RFCl, but (1) consensus seems quite clear to me WP:SNOW) and (2) this is an extremely high-visibility page for which (3) moving to the name chosen by consensus is time-sensitive (this is on the main page ITN section). Thanks, Neutrality^talk 00:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking with my page mover hat on, I think we should make a one-off decision to dispense with the seven day requirement because it's already one of the biggest page move discussions I've seen in a long time, and whether it's a "move" or "no consensus" won't change over the next six and a half days. We're allowed to close discussions early if the result is clear, just not normally this early. The only difficult decision is deciding which title it goes to (and I apologise for complicating it with my hat off). Sceptre (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that's the first time I learn news that big through an RfC! GPinkerton (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone willing to take this on? Neutrality^talk 01:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is always WP:WIP and WP:DEADLINE. I don't think the consensus is that clear for 'storming' atm anyway. There's a lot of "Support" but if you read the full comment it's for riots, or for some kind of move, not necessarily for storming. The only thing clear from that discussion imo is that there's consensus against protests. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Random observation: It is really weird to see stuff move this fast on Wikipedia. Is there any precedence for this?--WaltCip-(talk) 02:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Kenosha_unrest/Archive_6#Requested_move_25_August_2020 was closed in 3 days. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is massive already, I think it would be good if an uninvolved admin closed it after 24 hours, or at least made an interim move and allowed for a more focused round of discussion on further changes. There are 3 main proposals with support (riot, storming, insurrection), and plenty of "support" and "oppose" votes that don't give clear opinions on all 3, so it will take some time to close. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at the discussion, and I do not think it is eligible for a SNOW close. I would wait for the whole week and, if it is still ongoing at that moment, also longer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Reconsideration of TBAN

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 2019 I was topic banned from edits relating to the Knights of Columbus. I appealed six months later following the WP:SO. Reading some of the comments in that discussion made me realize that I still had some work to do and so I withdrew the appeal. In the months since, I have taken steps to address those concerns and think I am a better editor for it. With more than a year having passed, I now ask for the TBAN be reconsidered again.

As noted the first time around, I slipped up twice. The first was just an outright violation of the ban. I edited an article to add a wikilink and a minor detail to a low-interest biography of a Knight. It was totally my mistake and a few hours later I remembered and self-reverted. The other time was due to a misunderstanding of what my ban entailed. After it was pointed it out to me, I reread the sanction more closely, apologized, and have haven't done it since.

After the first appeal, I adopted a set of principles to help me in future disputes. Notably, they include a 1RR when editing contentious material, and greater use of WP:DR if a couple messages on the talk page are not enough to solve a dispute. There have even been occasions when I thought an edit was not controversial and got up to 2RR. When another editor objected and pointed to my userpage, I self-reverted.

As the ban was put into place partly due to my liberal interpretation of WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF sources, perhaps the most important principle I have adopted is immediately turning to WP:RSN whenever a source I am using is questioned (plus, it should be said, a more judicious use of sources in the first place). At the end of that statement I invite others to help me refine them and to call me out when I fall short. That stands, and the invitation is specifically extended to all those here.

I have frequently turned to noticeboards and respected editors' talk pages whenever a question has arisen. This includes times when I was pretty sure what the answer was, but wanted to be crystal clear and have uninvolved editors weigh in. I even had someone thank me on my talk page "for all the good work that [I] do and [my] perennially constructive approach to editing and discussion." It would appear from this that my efforts have been largely successful.

In addition to the steps outlined above, I have also made efforts to remove myself from conflicts. I've taken a few wikibreaks to emotionally untangle myself from the project, and it has worked. I don't check it nearly as often and my edit counts are down by about 50%. My recent contributions have mostly been in quiet corners of the encyclopedia and creating new biographical articles on individuals from underrepresented groups. Plus, these days I have neither the time nor the energy to engage in disputes, even if it means an edit I disagree with stands. Real life responsibilities have piled up in the last year and I don't see them abating anytime soon. I don't expect to be involved in disputes on Knights' related articles or anywhere else for the foreseeable future.

There are, occasionally, details or content that I would like to add. See, for example, the detail and wikilink mentioned above that no one else has restored. I would appreciate having the ban lifted so that when occasions like that arise I am able to add them. I would also like to propose, if others think it is needed, that this appeal be reconsidered in six months time. If by June everything remains copacetic, we can move forward. If not, the TBAN can be reimposed. Of course, it could always be reimposed sooner than that or after, but this sets up a formal mechanism for review.

Thank you all for your consideration. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unban I think a quote from the original ban request is appropriate “There seems to be significant WP:OWN, WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE / WP:UNDUE issues in these articles that have been introduced by the editor, there is no attempt at WP:IMPARTIAL” The main issue with Slugger’s editing was using poor quality and self-published sources to build up promotional content on organizations he had a COI with. I think edits from yesterday show that Slugger still has the same issues with organization he has connections with, in this case Catholic University of America. Looking at the sources two are self-published diocese sources, two are basically just pictures used for OR purposes, one is to the designers personal and promotional website, and one is to CUA itself. The only “secondary source” is the school paper. This is promotion content of no know notability that amounts to a line in the parent article, maybe.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

There are now five articles about university seals, including CUA's. At Yale University coat of arms, one of two sources is from the alumni magazine. At Coat of arms of the University of Chicago, all five come from the University. At Coat of arms of the University of Notre Dame, six of twelve are ND sources. And at Heraldry of Harvard University, all four references are from Harvard and 11 of 12 citations in the "Sources" section are from Harvard. It seemed to me that this was adequate sourcing. If I am mistaken, it wouldn't be the first time. Additionally, an independent editor with more than 125,000 lifetime edits has reviewed the article and did not tag it with any concerns, sourcing, notability, or otherwise. However, since you have questioned it, I will now bring the article to the attention of the RSN and see what they have to say. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If you care to weigh in, here is the RSN query. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The RSN is just more churn showing your inablity to edit in areas you are conflicted. You built an entire section, including the sentence "The Catholic University of America is the national university of the Catholic Church in the United States and its shield emphasizes those three elements", based on the schools branding [56] documentation. The pages are the directions on how to properly promote the CUA brand and you put the content in wikipedias voice. You shouldn't need RSN to know that wikepedia articles shouldn't be built off self admitted branding directions.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban. The article about the CUA seal is a perfect illustration of the consistently problematic aspects of Slugger O'Toole's editing. This editor knows quite well that notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, and yet he creates an article using sources affiliated with the university and the designer of the shield. The excuse? Some other articles about college shields are also poorly sourced so therefore it is OK to create a new article that is very poorly sourced. The topic ban should stay, and if this poor quality editing continues, the ban should be expanded to Roman Catholicism, broadly construed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Cullen328, I have created over 60 articles since my TBAN. This is the first time anyone has raised an objection about the sources I used in one. Perhaps I erred here, but I was basing my edits on precedent.

  In other cases, on the few occasions someone objected to one of my sources, I have brought it to RSN every time. I even did so when others were edit warring over it, and when I used a source someone else suggested on talk.

  I am not claiming to be perfect but, respectfully, I think "consistently problematic" may be overstating matters. I would ask you to look at the totality of my work since my last appeal, not just the last 24 hours. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Just the fact that you think the existence of a handful of other poorly referenced articles creates some sort of "precedent" to create another poorly referenced article is problematic in my view. You should not need to go to RSN to figure out whether a source is independent, since the lack of independence of these sources is glaringly obvious. I am not going to read 60 articles when the problems with your recent editing are clear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Slugger O'Toole, would you please back up your claim that I was edit warring with ElkevBo, or they with me. From memory, I removed, they reverted, so I added context. That is not edit warring.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Alternative Slugger should(UTC) remain banned from editing pages concerning the Knights of Columbus directly but perhaps allow them back on the Talk Pages of the articles. Limited initially to ONLY making Edit Requests and if that proves fruitful allow them fuller engagement on Talk Pages beyond Edit Requests or Remove the TBAN entirely. Slywriter (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Slywriter, That would not be my first choice, but I think that could work. Thank you. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment While it got mixed reviews at RSN, I believe the arguments made here and the negative comments at RSN are compelling. I therefor have nominated Coat of arms of The Catholic University of America for deletion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

User:JayBeeEll

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.

---

• JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KingBaudoin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Congo Free State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Again i am being insulted, first as a "whiny little bitch" which whent unpunished, now i am doing paranoid ranting.. it seems some have more right here then others!

His exact text: As has already been explained to you, this is not on topic. If you did more listening and less paranoid ranting, your tenure here would be smoother.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congo_Free_State&action=history

KingBaudoin (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The user above is edit warring here and here to push a certain file into the article. When other users disagree, he calls it politically motivated censorship. I hope an admin can calm this down. (Sorry for reacting here on the wrong noticeboard, I suppose.) Encycloon (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

It's rarely a good idea to call someone paranoid in an edit summary, but this editor's insistence that anyone who reverts his edits is engaged in censorship to protect Leopold II may qualify. The OP clearly has a POV regarding Belgium/Congo topics, and may not be able to edit collaboratively on that topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor It might be relevant to note that KingBaudoin has been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia from the Dutch versions of Congo Free State and Leopold II for the exact same behaviour he's been displaying on the English Wikipedia (edit warring to insert the same file into those articles, unability to edit collaboratively and throwing around accusations of left wing/Cultural Marxist censorship). Lennart97 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• @KingBaudoin: JayBeeEll did not call you a "whiny little bitch", I did. Not to say I'm proud of it, but I'll own up to it and ask that you take care not to insinuate that a different editor said that. Three different editors have reverted you, which means you clearly do not have consensus to add the file to the article. Make your case at the article talk page, and it would do you well to avoid calling people Marxists or censors just because they disagree with you. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Um, nobody thought it might be a good idea to notify me about this thread? Anyhow, anyone who looks at the OP's behavior (including the previous thread) will quickly come to the correct conclusion. --JBL (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, stop being such a whiny little—nevermind. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

kind of typical isent it, i report that some guy is slandering me, and that another guy also slanderd me, and that they are above the rules in wikipedia world, and in response: the entire Leopold II/Belgium/congo brigade from even other language encypclopedias that i had an issue with in the past over "censorhip" is here to call out that i am a bad person in respons... you try to remove a pamflet about Leopold II, and Congo Free State, from the pages of Leopold II and Congo Free State, just as you tried to remove the speech from King baudouin, because you want to hold power over the subject, because you want to keep the narative, and you want to protect Leopold II and Belgium, and some of you because you want to protect Belgium by keeping the narative that the Flemish independance movement are bunch of evil racists, and this poster proofs the oposite, anyway, you all have the same enemy, that is truth!

By the way the Belgian wikipedia is FUNDED by the Belgian Monarchy

• https://wikimedia.be/
• https://donate.kbs-frb.be/FVV_Wikimedia_Belgie/~mijn-donatie?_cv=1

Also, for non-Belgians, you have to understand the situation in Belgium, the country is about to collapse politically and the Monarchy is the only thing keeping Belgium together at the moment, so the royalist will do anything to shut up critical voices about French speaking suppression on Flemish people in the past, and about a very significant part of people in Belgium that favor Flemish independence, and they do this by keeping a narrative that Flemish are untrustworthy nazi collaborators, racists, fascists and so on, you know, the usual slandering that you would hear from Far left extremists, and that is the real reason why they dont want a poster like that on an important page of Congo Free state and Leopold II, because it breaks the entire narrative.

To give you an example, a while ago there was a big protest of pro-Flemish independance nationalists, 15.000 people came to this event, peaceful event, no material damage, or police violence problems or anything like that, from those 15.000 people, they found 1 crazy guy with some shady racist believes, the media which are very anti-flemish and Pro-Belgian in Belgium then zoom in on that 1 crazy person, and make it as if the enire 15.000 people are like that one guy, we are used to this kind of propaganda and fake naratives here in Belgium, so yes we can also instantly detect it.

And yes the flemish independance movement is concervative, not as in an American sense of the word "very Religious" because the majority of people in Belgium and Flanders is atheist, but concervative as in Liberal and Not being Green Left Socialist, the Belgian media, The French speaking part of Belgium and also the Monarchy which one of the princeses is even a prominent member of extintion rebellion is mostly Green Left and/or Socialist.

KingBaudoin (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you should print out a big "BLOCK ME" sign, it will have the same effect as what you're doing but with less time wasted. --JBL (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

yes ofcourse, keep the power, keep the narative! everything else is wrong and evil! KingBaudoin (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, user KingBaudoin doesn’t participate in the started topic, but reverts again and claims first an opinion poll should be held. I think a partially block is necessary here as well. Encycloon (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

We already had a very long discussion on the dutch wikipedia about this subject, wich btw you you are moderator on, and yes ofcourse you have different rules then me, nothing new, but, you stoped the conversation and then whent an started deleting the content with 10 different reasons every time you reverted the edit, we kan discuss forever, as you are the moderator you will always win.. kind of like in Belgium, where some people have more rights then others.. or like in Belgian Congo.. KingBaudoin (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think importing the conflict on the Dutch WP is quite helpful; see also WP:BATTLE. Encycloon (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

it is exactly the same subject with even the same people, how can you not import it Encycloon (talk? KingBaudoin (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

For example: I am no admin here (though this is irrelevant there as well) and the English users involved didn't read the Dutch discussion. (And I didn't stop the conversation there, though this is not relevant here.) --Encycloon (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok i understand, thanks. KingBaudoin (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think the following links may be relevant here: WP:NPOV, WP:CENSORSHIP, WP:FREESPEECH, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:RGW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokers Die Younger (2nd nomination)

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:Articles for deletion/Smokers Die Younger (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was non-admin closed without any discussion. I have no views on the merits of the article, but it seems to me that it should be reopened and discussed properly, and I prefer to leave it to an admin to do so. Mangoe (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the nominator has withdrawn their nomination, but instead of calling it "withdrawn" called it "speedy keep".--Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• I've notified User:Opalzukor of this discussion. In cases like this, where it was withdrawn 2 minutes after creation, does it make more sense to just delete the AFD page and undo all the related edits? So that if anyone else creates an AFD, it would be the 2nd one? Or is it better to change close rationale to "withdrawn"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mangoe:​​ Many apologies. I withdrew the nomination based on the rationale provided in the first nom and the article's talk page. I'm sorry for not tagging it as withdrawn. That being said, the article probably does need addressing. The sources provided on the talk page aren't in the article, and it seems like it was written from a fan's POV. Again, sorry for your time. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No worries, I (or someone more clueful about AFD) can do a little cleanup after someone tells me what we usually do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Since there were no other comments, I nuked it. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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

"Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" again

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 all,

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#"Draft:Sample page/(eight digit number)" - what's happening with them? from July 2020 - they are happening again.

Examples:

• Draft:Sample page/17763282
• Draft:Sample page/22718491
• Draft:Sample page/99246948

Sensu stricto they don't meet the WP:G2 criterion for speedy deletion - "This criterion applies neither to sandboxes nor to pages in the user namespace" - as they are intended to be sandboxes.

OK if I leave this to wiser heads that mine? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Shirt58, thanks for circling back on this. If I recall, the place we arrived at in July discussion and preceding VPT thread was that it'd be nice to have a bot automatically clean these up on after some period of time (perhaps a month) so that admins wouldn't have to do it manually when the normal six months expires. A request was created at WP:BOTREQ, but it didn't get taken up before it got archived. If there are enough of these pages that they continue to be a nuisance, perhaps revive the bot request? Feel free to let me know if there's anything I can do further to help. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 10:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb, I believe the issue is not with their existence, but with the fact that they are still being created. xaosflux, what happened to your "BRD" plan at Help:Introduction to Wikipedia? Primefac (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Just never personally did it, still don't really think these are a good idea though. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The wording of {{db-g2}}, that you quote above, does not seem to match with the policy (WP:G2) which says: This applies to pages created to test editing or other Wikipedia functions. It applies to subpages of the Wikipedia Sandbox created as tests, but does not apply to the Sandbox itself. It does not apply to pages in the user namespace. It does not apply to valid but unused or duplicate templates. Ivanvector since you suggested G2 applies at the BOTREQ, thoughts? I also would've thought these fit the WP:G2 wording.

I don't know about good idea or not, but I don't particularly see why these are so problematic. After all, users could create pages like this in their userspace, and that would be all okay? Should a bot really be deleting these? What if someone turned one of these into a valid draft article, then the normal G13 process should apply -- a bot couldn't tell the difference. I'm also not sure if an admin having to check Special:PrefixIndex every month or so and delete a dozen pages is that big of a deal tbh. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The button at H:ITW doesn't imply in any way "use this to create an article!" but rather implies that you're editing something akin to WP:Sandbox. Hell, if anything that's where the button should go. If someone wants to create a draft, they should be using WP:WIZARD. Primefac (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see how someone (especially a newbie) may click the button initially to fiddle around with the functions of the editor, and then develop on the same page to make something more concrete. I can sympathise someone who found a way of creating a page may stick with that vs dig out WP:WIZARD. But maybe we can add to the preload something like "Click here when you're ready to create an article." ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What this highlights for me is just how much pent up demand there is from low-competence editors to create pages. We have intentionally decided in the past not to link Help:Your first page from the left sidebar, the main page, etc., because we want people to first learn at least the very basics of editing so that they're slightly less likely to create a junk page that's rejected. The consequence of that, though, is that the inevitable group of IPs with the "just click through all the annoying instructions" mentality are ending up at H:ITW, bypassing the quite prominent "create account" button that appears to unregistered users above the sandbox links, and ending up creating the drafts we're encountering here (those who do create an account are instead directed to a sandbox in their userspace).

These sandboxes are designed to show the basics of wikimarkup, not for people to start drafting a page, since the people encountering these are not yet ready to make pages; adding a {{Submit}} button would just overwhelm the AfC folks, who are quite overwhelmed enough as is. I've added the line It may be deleted after a period of inactivity; please do not use it to draft an article or create anything else you wish to last. to help reinforce the point and give us easier justification for deleting them. As for using WP:Sandbox instead, I don't know of any way we could do that while retaining the functionality of preloading interesting example markup (it'd require the ability to make a link that clears out the existing content of a page and replaces it with a preload, and I think that's currently impossible). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I've deleted about 8 or 9 of these "sample pages" and they have all been gibberish, there has been no attempt to create an article. The editors are clearly testing out editing as if the pages were sandboxes, not draft articles. I don't think a link should lead to the creation of these pages for new editors but it's not a huge problem, I see 3 or 4 sample pages a week. But still it's an odd choice to invite the editor to create a sample page rather than sending them to the Sandbox or to their own sandbox but I guess I understand with Sdkb's explanation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

As I recall these pages are the result of editors without accounts (IP editors) following whichever tutorial it is that has this link. Editors with accounts are directed to their own sandbox, but IP editors don't have sandboxes (or maybe this is because a certain magic word doesn't work for IPs so the template can't populate). Maybe they should be directed to the general Wikipedia:Sandbox instead? They can learn the basics of wikimarkup there, and a bot already cleans up that page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Shirt58:@Liz: I brought this up earlier at the Village Pump; my main complaint about these pages is that they technically constitute a misuse of draft-space, which is intended for work-in-progress articles and not nonsense pages or other stuff that editors have no intention of submitting. As such, they regularly get tagged for speedy deletion, and this will surely spook new editors who thought they were playing by the rules. I think they should definitely be subpages of some other pages to avoid premature deletion, such as Wikipedia talk:Sandbox for IP users. Passengerpigeon (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Given how infrequently these appear, establishing any formal policy/guidelines just reeks of WP:CREEP. Legitimately abandoned pages can be deleted via WP:CSD#G2/WP:CSD#G13, but I'm skeptical it's a good use of anyone's time to suss these out on a (semi-)regular basis. -FASTILY 00:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Update: Scheme changed. Some additional concerns about the randomization not fully working were brought up here. Given that plus this, I changed the flow so that the draft pages with a random string are no longer used at H:ITW (log out to see the new flow). They're still used at the sandboxes at the end of subsequent modules in the tutorial, but those have a small fraction of the traffic and (I'd think) a much lower percentage of IPs, so these pages should become much rarer going forward. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, a complaint about how a process works actually leads to a change in that process? Kudos, Sdkb, for finding a solution, even if it is a partial solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Appeal topic ban (of User:Loves Woolf1882)

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 would please like to appeal my recent 6 months topic ban (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Loves_Woolf1882), since it is only a misuse of my record from 2 years ago, but not for something new I did. I was blocked 2 years ago but after my unblock I’ve been extremely careful. (Please review the edits I made ever since my unblock.) Nonetheless, someone is using my old record to wrongly report me now. A new topic ban, misusing what happened 2 years ago (a mistake I have paid for with a year & a half of waiting) is not fair. It is even very discouraging, to say the least. If I was a new user account, I would have even gotten Barnstar for all my careful & productive edits ever since my unblock.

It’s sad that someone can have me topic banned without me doing something new worthy of a ban. I was not even given a single warning from any administrator, since there was nothing worthy wrong I was doing. I would at least please like to have the topic ban time decreased from 6 months to 1 week.

I know User:Boud is an experienced veteran editor, and I even first got into unnecessary back and forth with him when I confused him with another editor (User:KZebegna, who called BBC & Reuters "inimical journalists"), as I clarified to Boud back then (diff); However, it hasn’t changed Boud’s views towards me ever since.

The comments that lead to my topic ban were made before I responded to them. So I have (shortened) and re-wrote my response on the subsection at the bottom.

Basically, I only tried to bring & give minority people's human right question/claims... equal space on Wikipedia, but I guess it looked as if I have some opposite view to other people. But that is because I brought the view of minorities in the midst of the majorities, on common issues to all. All my points were very WELL referenced by independent credible sources like BBC, the international Human Right Watch, NPR and so on (and only by such kind of credible media outlets and organizations).

My full RESPONSE to complaints against me.

* Hi Boud, about my past, I have already discussed this in details with the Administrators before. I don't think it is fair to bring things back after 2 years.

* Dear Administrators, many of User:Boud's points, I have before responded to on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag), so I please ask you read that first.(Or its diff.) With all due respect, User:Boud is misrepresenting my points here. My original NPOV complaint points can also be found above it on the same talk page (Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD-(or its first version diff))

* User:Boud is saying that adding in quotation "invaders" as exactly stated on the France 24 reference was wrong of me to do (https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20201205-ethiopia-we-are-in-our-homeland-the-invaders-are-attacking-us-says-tigray-s-gebremichael). However, I first explained on the Tigray conflict page LEAD that "invaders" was the term used by the TPLF(diff), and I put it in quotation at both the LEAD and the Info-box. I assume the Info-box should summarize the content of the page/LEAD. I have SEVERL responded to this before on Talk:Tigray conflict#POV in the infobox (or diff).

* User:Boud said "S/he justifies the flyby POV tag, which s/he insists is still relevant, as meaning that the article should better reflect the POV that 'TPLF have an over 45 years of admirable, heroic world class history, as the world knows'". However what Boud said is not correct, this not my POV point (and this “reply” line I once said when he accused me of degrading TPLF, is completely being used out of context, as I'll explain here). My NPOV points are the once I listed the link to above (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag and WP:NPOV complaints in the whole article, including LEAD). I even said this reply line only once to him/her when Boud said I like degraded TPLF by calling them "some party". I clarified this for Boud before on December 26, 2020:- "I believe you first said, I like degraded them by calling TPLF "some party", so I was just trying to undo the degrading". This was the last line on this link discussion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic ). Boud, first accused me of degrading TPLF by calling them "some party", then when I reply a 2nd sentence to undo my alleged TPLF degrading 1st statement, Boud says my 2nd new sentence is pro-TPLF and he posts it all over the place, including here. Now he is even saying that my this one reply sentence is the justification for my NPOV complaint, however, this is not true, and I have written the two links to the real justification of the NPOV tag I placed.

* Some of my suggestion are even ani-TPLF. For example, in diff, I made the point that the Amnesty international report incriminated TPLF (not the Samri youth group). I asked things to be stated as on the Amnesty report (which said "forces loyal to the TPLF"), not Samri, and for the WP:SYNTH to be corrected. Implicating TPLF directly instead of Samri, thereby being anti-TPLF.

* Boud said "This user inverted some of the infobox summaries regarding which ethnic groups were the victims...ethnic group called Welkait...". It is funny that Boud thanked me for correcting his this WP:SYNTH mistake on the talk page before, but now brings it here differently. Please admins read the flowing subsection about this point from the talk page, for fairness sake:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mai_Kadra_massacre#The_correct,_elementary_English_logic (or diff)

* Boud said "S/he recommended that I do the work of archiving the video/audio sources in order to satisfy the WP:PUBLISHED guideline." Again User:Boud, with all due respect I have answered this on Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Remove the POV tag. You said videos are difficult to check and wanted them (or wanted once that are already) transcripted and archived before they can be used as a reference. I have understood what the the WP:PUBLISHED guideline says, and it does not exclude the use of videos that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party, like the once I used. They are broadcasted but not yet archived (and it's not a requirement to archive them first). I asked for others (or your) "help" on how to archive them (until I figure out how to do them myself), but they still can be used as is according to WP:CITEVIDEO (since they were broadcasted by a reputable party).

* Even though Boud says that only 1 of my 15 recommended very credible articles is relevant, that is not true at all. I have before listed the relevant parts from all the 15 articles here:- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Replay to "Sources for perpetrators or victims of Mai Kadra massacre" (first version's diff). And I even made a shortlist of only 5 specific once to include in the Mai Kadra massacre Wikipedia page (not counting the videos), as you read on the link above :- Talk:Mai Kadra massacre#Response to "Remove the POV tag". (Justifications for the POV/NPOV tag).

* All of my references are from (and only from) the BBC, Reuters, CNN, Africanews, The Guardian, Voice of America, Deutsche Welle, France 24, Yahoo! News , Amnesty International, United Nations (UN), UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, International Crisis Group, The New Humanitarian, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, NBC News, NPR and Committee to Protect Journalists, so I don't understand why someone would say they have POV issue. The person Boud is now supporting (User:KZebegna), called all my references from the above outlets "inimical journalists" and "Yellow journalism". He does not agree with the addition of any content from the 15 articles because these are outlets which he calls "foreign propaganda outlets":- Talk:Tigray conflict#Please stop reverting my well referenced (and verified) edits, without a legitimate reason (or diff)

* Boud is misleading, when he says that I am working to give the reporting on the above very credible international media outlets (along the latest position of Amnesty International and the intentional Human Rights Watch) more weight, over what appears to be Boud’s favorite report from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

I) Even thought the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is run by appointees of one of the side of the war (the Ethiopian federal government), I didn’t completely discredited it, I only asked for it to not be given more than equal weight than the others. I did not even bring up the fact that EHRC’s leader Daniel Bekele is a former opposition politician who was convicted & imprisoned for two years for an attempted unconstitutional change in government (this is public record), by the former government sides his EHRC report is now accusing. Given the NOT impartial history of EHRC, I don’t know why Boud wants to take their report as the last word in the bible (e.g. Boud wanted first to make up an ethnic subgroup group called Welkait “everywhere”, because EHRC made up one in its report).

II) By the way, the international Human Rights Watch (HRW) to the contrary agrees with the reporting of the above international media outlets ( https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/23/interview-uncovering-crimes-committed-ethiopias-tigray-region ); contradicting with EHRC (EHRC stated the Mai Kadra victims were only Amhara/Wekait and the perpetrators Tigrayans). HRW reports both Amhara & Tigrayans were the victims, and points to federal forces as perpetrators, based on refugees.

III) About the outdated preliminary report of Amnesty International:- Amnesty made a preliminary report with its researcher Fisseha Tekle (Amhara ethnic), on this Mai Kardra’s said to be Amharas vs Tigrayan massacre. However, I only asked for the researcher to be named on the Wikipedia page, to point out if any bias (and therefore improve neutrality of the page). Furthermore, and more importantly, Amnesty International (and its researcher Fisseha Tekle) has changed position from the outdated preliminary report. The outdated preliminary report said only Amhara ethnic people were the victims in Mai Kardra, but now even Fisseha Tekle has gone on NPR and Associated Press to correct this (https://www.npr.org/2020/12/28/950886248/hundreds-of-civilians-killed-with-machetes-and-axes-in-ethiopian-town), and now Amnesty International also agrees with the reporting of the above media outlets (that Tigrayans were also half of the victims in Mai Kardra). So Boud is actually making a POV himself by suppressing the latest reporting of the 5 media outlets and the latest Fisseha Tekle (Amnesty) interview on NPR & Associated Press; and using only the “outdated preliminary report of Amnesty” along EHRC. I pointed out the update from the Associated Press several times to Boud before all this (as you can see on the talk page), even though he mostly ignored it ( https://apnews.com/article/sudan-ethiopia-massacres-d16a089f8dcb0511172b5662b9244f78 ). Lets please give all credible published latest views equal & neutral weight is all I’m saying.

* As you may have read my compliant on the first bold link I wrote above:- what could be a better justification for NPOV tag than presenting the side of only one. The page only has a subsection called "Federal government point of view" (Mai Kadra massacre##Federal government point of view) (diff) and gives the accusation of the one side (the federal government). However, it does not have a subsection called "Tigray's regional government point of view" also giving the point of view of the other side, and making the article neutral. The page also lacks significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic; and I have short listed 5 published reliable sources to added (and 1 or 2 video, giving the NBC News video a priority).

* Boud said I "posts massive amounts of content on the talk page including straightforward errors". This is not true again. Boud thought it was an error because s/he does not open videos, and the video on the same article clearly has the point I was making. I have pointed out this to him also (diff). There have been other incidents also when he accused me of error and then corrected himself (on my talk page on the massacre talk page, especially with the interpretation of the phrase "the army"). And about “massive amounts of content” is a misrepresentation. I first only put the links to the credible reference, then when he didn’t see my points with them, I posted the exact quote from the credible article. Then he is now calling these quotes “massive amounts of content”. S/he is accusing me of two opposite things again, one after the other’s reply.

I). A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from my talk page:-"It turned out that reference 2 with ...‘I fled Mai-Kadra, because the army' was a valid rather than "weak" reference, as I did the work to discover."

II).A quote from Boud correcting his error, taken from the Mai-Kadra talk page :- "editors making good faith edits can make errors… Immediately before the Geidi sentence about "the army", there is a sentence But several refugees at the Sudanese camp said federal troops had committed atrocities. It is clear that this sentence is an introduction to the following sentence; so the intended meaning of the following sentence is that "the army" is the ENDF. ...So you happen to have been right."

* It is not fair to block me because of things that happened 2 years ago. Please review User:Boud's report and my response independently and decide if I did something wrong worthy of a block. Thank you. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

In this gigantic wall-of-text that it's unlikely anyone will fully read, two things stand out to me - That you won't accept responsibility for the behavior that got you topic-banned, and that you're continuing to attack the editor that you claim got you topic-banned. I can tell you without even checking into this further that this will not get you anywhere. This is not even withstanding the fact that the topic ban that was placed on you to begin with isn't even a day ripe.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I accepted full responsibility for things that got me blocked 2 years ago. And I have corrected them. But this topic-ban is not justified. If someone with knowledge on the topics I was editing on after my unblock, manages to review my appeal, they would realize that. It is not fair to topic-ban me without me doing something new worthy of a ban. If I knew this would happen, (and if I knew that it was an allowed option), I would have WP:CLEANSTART to avoid such harassment, as I have ready recognized my past mistakes. Ask yourself a question, do you think I would have been topic banned (or even reported for a topic ban) had I WP:CLEANSTARTed (of if I was a new account), based on my last 1 month edit? NO. To the contrary, I would have even been thanked. That was my point. Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of throwing fuel on the fire, I think you underestimate how contentious that area is right now and how hostile it is to new editors. There are organized sock farms pushing particular POVs that admins and checkusers have been combatting, resulting in an arbitration committee case barely a month ago. I do not share your confidence that you would have been thanked. Personally, I would expect you to be CU blocked quite quickly given the known sockpuppet problem there and your previous CU block in that topic area. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wugapodes, you said it yourself, you don't know "the topic area that well"; but if someone who knows the topic area reviewed my last 1 month edits, I'm sure they would thank me (I have been extremely careful and productive). About my mistakes from 2 years ago, (which I accepted responsibility for); it is not fair to say I will repeat them without me doing no such thing towards them. And I’ve already explained why I won’t ever, on my unblock appeal back then. But this seem to be the logic that got me banned now. Just because others are having problems there, it is not fair to ban me without me doing something worthy of a ban (or even something wrong). Not everyone is the same.Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

you don't know "the topic area that well" I don't know the topic certainly, but I do know the administrative problems in the area. See User talk:Wugapodes#Administrators' newsletter – January 2021 and WP:HORN. if someone who knows the topic area reviewed my last 1 month edits, I'm sure they would thank me Then why has that not happened in the last month? Instead, someone familiar with the topic area reported you to ANI. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• My only comment would be that the TBAN discussion over at ANI (closed today) only seems to have had three participants (four including the closer), and while the three all seemed to be in favor of a topic ban there really didn’t seem to be extensive discussion. I’m also not a fan of the circumvention of the ACDS notice requirements here (as noted by Drmies in the original discussion) by just imposing a community TBAN with identical scope. If there had been widespread participation and some other special circumstances I could understand something running in parallel to the ACDS issue... but where the sole issue is something squarely (and I mean squarely) within an existing ACDS regime it kind of defeats the purpose of the Committee managing and exercising its own jurisdiction over a topic area. I think this TBAN should be overturned and the discussion sent to WP:AE when OP violates (not “if” since I think from everything here it’s clear OP will violate). Yes, yes, it sounds like meaningless process. But there’s a reason why ACDS regimes require notice. Circumvention by a few people is just a bad idea and invites all sorts of gaming the system going forward. If the community is going to permit the Committee continue to exercise the nearly-unfettered discretion it has to impose DS regimes, then we have to work with that system even when it’s a minor inconvenience. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Note from closing admin since we're here I wanted to provide some thoughts with a bit more candor than I would in a closing statement. First, I'd be entirely open to reducing the length of the ban but certainly not to 1 week. The OP made two suggestions for the TBAN length: one month and six months. LindsayH said 30 days, and Drmies wanted longer than 30 days so I picked the only length mentioned that was more than 30 days. Is it the best? Probably not, but I also don't want to start second guessing discussion participants. Second, my initial reaction when reading the thread was surprise at how accommodating all the participants were (a good surprise, not a bad one). Having read (but apparently not participated; I thought I had) in LW's unblock request ~a month ago, my understanding was that the community extended an unblock per WP:SO and WP:ROPE, and this report seemed like a repeat of the behavior that led to the block 18-ish months ago. So while I agree we shouldn't be dredging up old news, how this behavior relates to the previous behavior is relevant, and I was happily surprised that this didn't end up in a re-block. I hinted at this in the closing statement and made a point to say as much when LW came to my talk page asking for clarification. Third, I don't think there's any harm in community sanctions overlapping arbcom sanction regimes--the community is superior to arbcom in any event so there's nothing in their jurisdiction that isn't in ours. If anything, having a standard definition of "Horn of Africa" is a good thing because it prevents confusion and accidental ban violations which is why I chose that definition instead of making up my own. While there may not have been many participants, they were unanimous and no one objected. Regardless of whether there is an AC/DS regime in place, I really see no way to read that discussion without coming to a conclusion that the community does not support LW editing Horn of Africa articles right now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The elephants in the room are (1) how few participants there were, and (2) that the participants voiced an intent to circumvent the ACDS notice procedure. I just can't see that as legitimate under the circumstances. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • (1) Ban discussions have a minimum duration (I know because I was the one who proposed we increase the minimum discussion time), but we do not have a minimum participation requirement. So unless there's a policy I'm missing, that elephant isn't a reason to close against the stated preferences of the participants. (2) AC/DS governs when admins may unilaterally place sanctions. This was not a unilateral action; there was nothing to circumvent. If LW had been aware, someone could have acted unilaterally, but since they were not aware we had to have a community discussion to figure out what to do (which we did). Just because an admin cannot act unilaterally does not mean the community cannot act. I just can't wrap my head around why a template should allow me to impose just about any sanction I want, but after a 5 day discussion where the editor was notified and participated along with others I somehow cannot implement the consensus. If that's what the consensus here winds up being, fine, but it strikes me as quite wonky and against the point of WP:NOTBURO. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the participates commented only BEFORE I responded to the unjustified accusations made against me. I spent time to answer for every accusation (with Diff) and so on, since I did nothing wrong worthy of this ban or its report. However, none of the participants commented after my response, and not even the closing admin read it (as he said it was a wall of text). And many say they don’t know the topic area that well. But what can I do other than answer all unjustified accusations against me, point by point? Anyhow, please consider overturning or at least significantly reducing the length of this ban (for sake of fairness).Loves Woolf1882 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

not even the closing admin read it (as he said it was a wall of text) I did read it. My reference to WP:WALLOFTEXT was (like Walt above) a warning to you about how other people will interpret it and a probable explanation of why no one engaged with you. I disregarded it not because I didn't read it but because it was largely nonsensical and seemed like you didn't read the OP with any charity or objectivity. You largely linked to the same discussions boud did, so prior participants saw exactly the conversations you wanted them to. What you seem incredulous of is that someone could read those discussions and think you did a less-than-perfect job. WaltClip already gave you a brief overview of why your response is unpersuasive, but to drive the point home, let me expand on why I found it to be of little value in determining consensus.

Boud's OP was largely unconcerned with your POV, yet much of your reply focused on how you didn't violate NPOV. In fact, Boud went out of their way to say that your POV was a benefit to the articles: a topic ban to protect other editors and to protect the consistency of content with Wikipedia guidelines should be weighed against the user's positive role in diversifying the POVs in the articles. so right off the bat most of what you said was a complete mischaracterization of the issue. What Boud did complain about was how your discussion style (see WP:WALLOFTEXT, WP:RGW, and WP:TE) was harming the ability of editors to have discussions, build consensus, and describe issues consistently across articles as well as how source characterization issues have persisted despite the unblock. With regard to the first point, in the month since you've been unblocked you contributed over 63% of the text at Talk:Mai Kadra massacre accounting for 73kB--twice more than the next highest contributor; you contributed 66% of the text at Talk:Tigray conflict with almost 77kB, over 5 times more than the next highest contributor. On its face it looks like you're bludgeoning the discussions and looking at the actual talk pages makes that even more apparent. Finding a talk page discussion where you gave a response with fewer than 3 paragraphs is rare, so it's no wonder why so many other editors have stopped participating. But I digress, back to the OP.

Boud reports that the neutrality of your edits at Tigray conflict were challenged, and looking at the discussion, the challenge was supported by a second editor. Your response to that 1kB complaint and concurrence was an 11kB, multiparagraph response that--among other issues--contained a borderline personal attack against another editor who hadn't even commented in that discussion yet Since User:KZebegna (with all due respect) is a very harsh critic of TPLF and oppose it to the extreme, he believe there is still more room left to shift the article far to Amhara extremists side. On that same article, Boud reports that you fail to grasp why using scare quotes around "invaders" may be non-neutral, and in your response at ANI you continue to not get the point, completely ignoring the connotations of the quotes, and just parroting the fact that a source did it which if anything proves Boud's point.

At Mai Kadra massacre, you claim Boud was hypocritically faulting you for something they thanked you for, but in doing so completely misrepresent the discussion you yourself link to. I'm not even sure the diff you included was correct since it showed Boud disagreeing with you---I think you meant this comment where Boud says So you happen to have been right. But you didn't show that you're right. I've done the work to show that you're right (on this particular point). along with two other pragraphs saying how your discussion behavior has been a problem. Among the complaints Boud raises with your sources at that page, they point out that the guideline WP:PUBLISHED requires videos be archived. In your response at ANI, despite linking to that very guideline and claiming you understand it, you say it's not a requirement to archive them first despite the guideline saying quite clearly an archived copy of the media must exist. To support your point you say that the unratified essay WP:CITEVIDEO has no such text and so you don't have to comply. WP:PUBLISHED supercedes WP:CITEVIDEO (see WP:CONLEVEL and the text at the top of WP:CITEVIDEO that says This page is not ... one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Regardless of the actual merits of the sources, you clearly do not fully grasp our sourcing policies because in your response to a complaint about it you continue to misrepresent our guidelines.

Perhaps I missed it, but I couldn't find a place in your response where you addressed Boud's concerns about your conduct at Awol Allo. Boud's report didn't even include their concerns at Talk:Awol Allo about you introducing copyright violations, not sure why, but let's ignroe it for now and focus on your talk page conduct there which was the point of the report. In response to concerns about unacceptable synthesis, you say But LOOOOOOL, SYNTH with WP:SYNTH policy reference itself. which Boud, in that discussion, rightly points out as appearing to be mocking and unhelpful. The thrust of your point isn't even correct as you're trying to say Boud's interpretation of SYNTH is incorrect because it's synthesis itself, but if you scroll up to the top of that page it says This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content so again we see you don't understand one of wikipedia's core content policies.

I don't want to keep going with your response. When asking for an unblock you said you understood these policies, and yet here I am, explaining them to you again, weeks after Boud quite patiently tried to explain them to you multiple times. I thought I was being kind a day or so ago by refraining from being direct and candid. Instead, it seems my restraint allowed you to continue thinking that everyone except you is wrong, so mea culpa for not nipping this in the bud. I spend a great deal of time closing discussions, and have even written an essay on how the timing of comments can or cannot help us determine consensus, so I actually find it quite insulting that you would think I would sanction you without giving you the courtesy of reading your response. I read what you wrote and I thought it was hand-wringing from a recently unblocked editor trying to save their skin. It convinced me that the report had merit, and that the editors in participation properly considered the matter at hand. In fact, it made me believe the proposed sanctions were too lenient considering your recent unblock for very similar behavior, but it was my philosophical belief in closer-restraint that stopped me from re-blocking you on the spot and instead going with what the participants wanted.

With the candor out of the way, I want to end on a positive note. I don't like sanctioning editors, and I mean what I said on my talk page that you are in fact a benefit to the encyclopedia. These are all newbie mistakes, and we all have made them. No one expects perfection. You're a perfectly fine person, and I hope to see you continue editing. The problem here is hubris; you need to acknowledge that you don't in fact know everything and still have stuff to learn about Wikipedia. If you were to take Lindsay's advice, or my advice, or Nil's advice to step back from this topic area and learn the ropes in a friendlier environment, then I'm certtain you'll learn a lot and grow. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Decline appeal - walls of text aside, the ban had consensus in the ANI thread. Loves Woolf1882 was lucky that it originally archived without action. By continuing the dispute, Lone Woolf demonstrated the wisdom of the consensus in the ANI thread. In this appeal, they again demonstrate the wisdom of the consensus and the correctness of the close. Nothing herein suggests the ban is no longer necessary. (Non-administrator comment) Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Decline and extend tban - as a non-admin active on AN/I this past month, and somewhat familiar with the behavior of Woolf as shown therein, I believe Wugapodes made a good, but difficult, call in this instance. Given their behavior, I'm surprised they've not been handed a block of some sort. Regardless, I wonder if we're dealing with a different situation entirely. Their comments, like those on Wug's page, and this one, make me wonder. It seems very difficult for them to accept criticism or sanction. They still seem to be playing the victim in this situation. I believe their tban should be lengthened to 6 months minimum. Additionally, I believe they should consider themselves on thin ice regarding behavior and grace. (Non-administrator comment) ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm inclined to defer to the admin's opinion on enforcement of WP:AC/DS. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Loves_Woolf1882 is the original discussion and the only defense (there and here) is that the diffs are old. Loves_Woolf1882 has continued (almost exclusively) to edit in the Horn of Africa topic area. I don't see any specific diff that justifies a ban, but they are tendentious in the area, and I'd encourage Woolf to edit other articles before appealing their TBAN. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Advice which has already been given and ignored. Sadly. I would have to say that it's not the diffs themselves which concern me so much as the deafness to any suggestions of behavioural change. I do not, unlike Gwennie, consider it a case of competence, rather willfulness; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• For the reasons i mention above, i say decline appeal. In fact, though i originally suggested thirty days, as Wugapodes notes above, i now recommend that the topic ban not be lifted until the appellant has shown some evidence of willingness to listen to and abide by community standards by editing in an area other than the Horn of Africa; once that happens, i'd be more inclined to think about lifting the ban; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 19:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

An anonymous user named "2001:d08:e3:86d4:b063:e860:55e7:3648" editing false informations on K/DA 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.

---

• 2001:d08:e3:86d4:b063:e860:55e7:3648 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• K/DA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This anonymous user "2001:d08:e3:86d4:b063:e860:55e7:3648" has been reverting the edits in K/DA page, mostly on "Members" tab with false informations about which character is voiced by an artist. I tried to reach out to them to talk about the edits he/she made but I can't as this user is anonymous. And also, the edits they're making on K/DA page are false and it seems they don't have any proper explanation to support the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InTheLifeIChoose (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Account compromised: Posting for general awareness

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

---

Hi , I ( Devopam ) received two emails today within a span of 15 minutes. The first one was alarming me regarding repeated login attempts and the next one came in that I have successfully changed my email to something else ( which I have no control of ). It advised me to connect with Administrators if I have not initiated the change. So, I went ahead and posted the issue here . Please understand that I am not deliberately tagging my user as alerts will go to the impersonator who has control of it. My Committed Identity ( long generated ) is posted here. I believe we need 2F authentication for controlling such instances but that is something for a larger discussion. Request you to please help in re-instating the account ( by simply reverting to the previous email id itself so that I can get the password reset link there ) or any other process that is relevant. Since I am not logged in , I will keep monitoring this page to see the responses. Thanks & regards. Devopam 136.185.169.146 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 2FA, see Help:Two-factor authentication. DMacks (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Devopam, I would actually recommend creating a spare account, while your IP address is static. Regarding regaining control. Us mere wiki-users cannot change your email address, you need someone with database access. I've never tried personally, but on occasions such as this people always point to the email address listed at the top of m:Help:Compromised accounts, and it seems be effective. We also have a local page at Wikipedia:Compromised accounts. Before anyone asks, several admins and established users were targeted today, within the past six hours. If that was you and your username does NOT begin with letters A through D, I'd like to hear from you. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't compromised, but I would like to say I have receieved a lot of failed log in attempt notifications within the past month. There were around 60+ failed attempts in a period of 5 days at one point. I have requested 2FA. Hope this helps. Eyebeller 12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I believe that if you are able to prove using your CI or otherwise, the developers will be able to reinstate your account. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

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

NSW Swifts/Sydney Swifts

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

---

I am concerned about the recent edits by @NettyHistory101: at New South Wales Swifts for several reasons which have outlined at Talk:New South Wales Swifts. In brief they are not up to Wikipedia standard and contain misleading and false claims. Djln Djln (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Djln, hm, it looks like what they were trying to add repeatedly was information directly copied from the team's website. I've p-blocked from the article to get them to start discussing. —valereee (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Valereee for your support. Unfortunately some "editors" confuse Wiki articles for fan forums. Djln Djln (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee Unfortunately NettyHistory101 has refused to enter in a proper discussion and is now editing article anonymously, continuing to post inaccurate information which as you pointed out is also in breech of copyright. Djln Djln (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

blocked the IP for a week for socking to evade the p-block. I've asked them on the IP's talk to please log back in, go to the article talk, and discuss. —valereee (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, thanks again for your support. Djln Djln (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

IndieGoGo

For some reason, adding links to indiegogo[dot]com is blocked even for extended confirmed users like me. I'm using this website as a reference for the funding total of CraftStudio but have had to break the URL to get past the filter. Can the ".com" be added to the page and maybe thie blocking of this link rethought? What's the problem with it?  Nixinova   T   C   03:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's an obvious spam sink - that's why it's blacklisted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nixinova: - requests for individual pages to be allowed to be used can be made at WT:WHITELIST. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but for extended-confirmed users?  Nixinova   T   C   08:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually the spam-filter blocks links for everyone, including administrators.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It's sadly not uncommon to see accounts that are obviously gaming EC status. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nixinova, I'd rather see a better source that that anyway. Is there really nothing out there that mentions them reaching their funding goal in April? What's Ubuntu Vibes? —valereee (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, will replace it with that; for some reason google is terrible at giving me results for CraftStudio.  Nixinova   T   C   20:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Should these US election articles be protected?

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 some articles related to recent US elections be WP:ECP protected? The following were requested at WP:RFPP and declined by Fvasconcellos as insufficient recent activity and/or ECP would not stop some of the problematic edits: Mitch McConnell • John Thune • Dick Durbin • Chuck Schumer • Chuck Grassley • Patrick Leahy.

The problem, for example, is that enthusiastic but uninformed editors are doing things like changing Mitch McConnell from "Senate Majority Leader" to "Senate Minority Leader-designate". That change is factually incorrect, plus the designate term is made-up and has no standing. I'm posting here for opinions because abandoning the one or two editors trying to keep the articles factual seems unkind, yet the decline would be correct in normal times. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) Wouldn't an editnotice pointing this out to editors also work without having to ECP protect a whole swathe of articles? Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Asartea, in this case, based on how I've seen editors ignore inline warnings recently, I don't think so. The Senate is changing hands, and I think some Democrats with new accounts may simply be too excited to restrain themselves from making these factually-incorrect edits. Given the multiple requests at Talk:Kelly Loeffler for similar incorrect changes, I'd say ECP is helping that page. Protecting the BLPs of the Senate leadership isn't a big leap from protecting Party leaders of the United States Senate for the same reason. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357, Thats a good point and after reading the talk pages for some of those pages I think ECP until January 20th when this matter should be settled no matter what might be a good idea. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As the one who made the requests, I welcome this thread. I'd never gone straight to requesting ECP protection before requesting it for the relevant election yesterday. I agree that in normal times the individual level of disruptive behavior may not be enough to justify protection on some of these pages, but given the political upheaval we're seeing unfold in the US right now, I think it's critical we keep these pages factual. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

No objections to protection. Two weeks is a long time to fight off misinformed editors. GoodDay (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but these edits are minimally disruptive. Yes, users repeatedly adding "President pro tempore of the Senate-designate" is absurd, but does it warrant ECP/full protection? I really don't see how. This should be addressed with discussion. Perhaps another RfC, similar to the recent one at Jill Biden (later extended to Doug Emhoff), would be in order. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, it's reasonable to expect that they'll die off within a day or so as it ceases to be breaking news. Editors rushing to put stuff about the results of an election in an article before the relevant office actually changes hands is normal and happens almost every time there's a high-profile contentious election; it rarely lasts for more than few days. --Aquillion (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that temporary ECP protection would work if most editors are going to add the same thing. A previous discussion at Ymblanter's talk page in which football fans were adding transfer news to a footballer was met with protection instead of using editnotices. Given this situation, ECP should be deserved. Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 07:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: It just happened again at Patrick Leahy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's a consensus to protect, then I am happy to protect them, although ECP does feel excessive to me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, ECP is probably a bit overkill but there are no intermediate levels of protection... Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 07:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fvasconcellos, looking at it even pages such as Mitch McConnell which are already semiprotected are still suffering from the same issues so I think ECP would be necessary if protection is used. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The contested edits in Mitch McConnell were done by an extended-confirmed user, so ECP wouldn't help either in that specific case. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected Patrick Leahy for a month as arbitration enforcement. We may not extended protect articles before they get semi-protected and protection turns out to be insufficient. This might likely happen in this case, and one may then upgrade protection to extended confirmed. My apologies, I do not have time now to look at other articles, I will do it later if the discussion has not been resolved.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Fvasconcellos' decline ECP wouldn't stop the disruption as Fvasconcellos points out, so imo that's just a non-starter. The only option would be full protection, but looking at the page histories there's absolutely no justification for full protection right now. Even if we had a sufficient protection level between ECP and full, this is still a bad candidate for protection and we should prefer blocks. The changes seem to be from one or two editors adding speculation about senate leadership--that's a situation to block not protect. Regardless, it seems to have stopped as Fvasconcellos points out the editor has agreed to abide by a recent RfC consensus. Most of these pages are semi-protected anyway, so the risk of disruption is already minimal; what we're talking about is whether to deny established editors the ability to edit high profile articles just because someone made a bold edit and then agreed to stop when challenged on it. That's not a recipe for page protection per WP:PREEMPT. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse no ECP there's clearly an editing problem on some of these articles, but it doesn't seem too severe. As long as admins are watching the articles to discipline problematic editors (or even just regular editors to revert inappropriate edits) it seems fine for now. The volume to need ECP doesn't seem to be there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Wuhan Institute of Virology could do with some eyes

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.

---

• Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We've had a few relative newcomers wanting to make contested changes at Wuhan Institute of Virology regarding the lab leak theory, and there are disputes about sources (scientific v news, popular etc) at the talk page. There don't seem to be many regular editors there at the moment, and I'm not able to do much myself (as, perhaps ironically, I'm quite ill with the relevant symptoms). So, experienced editors, admins, if you can spare the time to keep an eye on it, I think that would be helful. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I'll look at it. Also hope you recover soon! Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 13:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Best wishes for a speedy recovery from me as well, Boing! said Zebedee! El_C 19:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, hope you get better soon, Boing! said Zebedee!!! -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

JFC, this is still going on? I think getting a ANI thread to topic ban ScrupulousScribe, the main offender, is warranted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• There seems to be some fighting breaking out at Talk:Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic too - I got a ping from there, but I'm not able to investigate right now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Battle For Dream Island

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 would like to say that BFDI has caused a major industry online in YouTube per se, it has a big fan base, and probably should have a page. Although the page name has been blacklisted, could you please make it? It’s okay if you don’t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RusherLeBFDIFan (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, do you have any sources that an editor can make an article out of? This article guideline will help. Happy new year! Eumat114 (Message) 01:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Uhh... wikis? RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

RusherLeBFDIFan, then, unfortunely, no, as those are not considered reliable. See WP:UGC. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, alright. RusherLeBFDIFan (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Suggesting page-banning user LambdofGod

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. Since October, user LambdofGod has repeatedly edited the Roman people page, changing sourced content and in cases removing sources or editing content going against what is actually said in the sources used. It has forced me to add in an unnecessarily large amount of citations for certain statements in the article which are not actually controversial in academia. The main point of their edits appear to be to downplay Roman identity outside of Italy and push the idea that Italians are the foremost heirs of the Romans, a problematic viewpoint that goes against the consensus. At no point did they raise their grievances with the article on the talk page before editing. With this in mind, I suggest that LambdofGod be banned from editing the Roman people article, as I can see that banning a user from editing a specific page is possible (WP:PBAN). I can't speak of their edits elsewhere so I can't speak of anything beyond this specific article but I notice on their talk page that they have been challenged for adding their own personal interpretations to articles before. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator, I didn't think there was such an article; I looked for it once and found nothing. Now I see you have created it in the meantime. Well done! GPinkerton (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton Thank you! Making no claims that the article is complete as it stands but I think Roman identity and what happened to it is a fascinating subject and I hope some admin attention will resolve it being hijacked by people trying to emphasize ethnicity; you're welcome to take a look at the page and see if there is anything obvious you think is missing. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:PERM

WP:PERM is severely backlogged, with some unanswered requests dating back to almost a month ago. GMXping! 04:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) It could use some attention, but "severely backlogged" is an exaggeration; I see one (rollback) request >1 month old (with replies), and everything else in the last two weeks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) a backlog exists only at WP:PERM/MMS, WP:PERM/AWB and WP:PERM/FM. But none are "severe" in nature. — Amkgp 💬 12:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Buckle Up

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

---

The DoD is referring to the storming of the US Capitol as the "2021 First Amendment Protests." It just hit twitter. —valereee (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Your point being? The term was immediately made a redirect to 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. — Maile (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my point being that it will likely bring in a new crop of POV-pushers to numerous articles, and that seemed worth notifying other admins about. —valereee (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well, someone must have tried that , because there's an immediate media backlash saying the term does not apply. 1 — Maile (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't yet see anything online that says the Department of Defense has termed it that. Do you have a link other than twitter? Wouldn't the DofD have issued some official statement or something? Just because it's on Twitter does not mean it really happened. I have the feeling the recently Twitter-banned about-to-be-ex-prez has found a way to get his POV out on twitter anyway. — Maile (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Here's the press release from yesterday: [57] which links to the document: [58] and yes, I did check first. I just didn't realize I was going to need to prove it here at AN. —valereee (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

My concern was more that it didn't really matter if it was true or not as long as the Twitterverse believed it was true. —valereee (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

A quick search of the term reveals it's used in a few documents and websites, so I made it into a redirect as an alternative name. I don't think we can do much here except wait and see what happens. Pahunkat (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Demoratic Underground posted the copy of the memorandum from the office of the SecDef that uses that label.[59] Discussion of that memo probably found its way from there to twitter. Schazjmd (talk) 15:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Meh ... that was written on December 31, and the dept reports to the Twitter-banned current occupant of the Oval Office. Perhaps they were told to label it that, but we'll never know. — Maile (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

But the press release was from yesterday, and more importantly, it just now blew up on twitter. —valereee (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriously this is not me being outraged, this is me trying to let other admins know that there is likely to be some outrage coming in to articles. Thought it was worth mentioning. —valereee (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Changes to Functionary Team

At his own request, the Oversight permission of Someguy1221 are removed.

In addition, in accordance with the policy on CheckUser and Oversighter inactivity, the CheckUser rights of Berean Hunter are removed.

The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Someguy1221 and Berean Hunter for their service as functionaries.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katie^talk 15:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § changes to functionary team

How do we feel about accounts that only seek deletion?

Like this one: [60]

If this hasn't been covered before, I would invite both admin and non-admin opinions to get a broad perspective. Thank you.

Samsara 09:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Example user notified of discussion [61] Samsara 09:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have no problem with an AfD SPA. Accounts of this nature are consistent with our policies and guidelines as I understand them. Our WP:EDITING policy says that "Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help." In this case the thing the editor is bringing to the table is a willingness to ferret-out content that doesn't meet some aspect of our policies or guidelines, or at least what they perceive to be content that doesn't meet some aspect of our policies or guidelines. Our WP:VOLUNTEER supplement establishes there are no minimum participation thresholds that need to be crossed, presumably allowing someone to hyperfocus on AfDs, or even nanofocus just on AfDs that meet the deletion criteria to the exclusion of those that would warrant keep !votes. That said, I think it may be too early to describe Foonblace as an AfD SPA since they've only made 33 lifetime edits. Chetsford (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I should mention that it is a little unfair to single me out as "only seeking deletion" - I have made other contributions to Wikipedia also. My reason for seeking deletion for the pages in question is that I genuinely do not think that their subject matter meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and, if a page was created about them now, would be removed for that reason. There is possibly a wider discussion to be had in fact about pages for F/OSS projects in the same vein, many of which have existed for well over ten years while the projects they're about died shortly after they were created. Foonblace (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between longevity and impact, and impact is usually more relevant to notability. Samsara 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• So long as they understand the relevant guidelines (such as notability) and add useful input to the deletion discussions, I don't see an issue. Users are here to contribute to the encyclopedia in different ways than others, whether it be creating and expanding articles, reverting vandalism, or discussing the deletion of pages. If what they're doing benefits the project, I see no problem with it. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• If there's nothing disruptive about the deletion nominations themselves, why would it be a problem? Finding inappropriate articles is a valuable contribution to the encyclopaedia—otherwise we wouldn't have a deletion policy—and restricting that work to editors who have somehow qualified themselves by doing other tasks would be against the basic ethos of the project. – Joe (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Editing a compilation of documents involves not just deciding what to put in, but also what not to. Unless there is something actually wrong with the deletion nominations, trimmers perform a useful function on this encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• I feel substantially kinder about them than I do about the wikidata trolls trying to subvert and twist ENWP for their own personal financial benefit. Or the commons editors who seem more interested in keeping pictures of underage penises around. In comparison an editor who spends a substantial amount of their time nominating articles for deletion is way down my list of 'people not wanted here'. Behind people who spam create articles from badly sourced databases, cosmetic bot operators & mime artists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for calling me a troll and suggesting I am getting financial benefits for twisting ENWP. Have a nice day.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  Although I agree with you that wikidata is dismal trash, and so are database-scrape permastubs, I think accusing people of shilling is a bit much. Reyk _YO! 13:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  The second sentence of OID's comment parses correctly as "that subset of commons editors who ...." The syntax of the first sentence is less clear, but it seems more likely to me that it should be parsed "that subset of wikidata editors who are trolls trying ...", no? --JBL (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  While I know Wikidata is a rather sore point here, taking that as a blanket statement against all WD editors does seem to be reaching. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I feel the same away about accounts that only seek deletion as I do about accounts that only create articles. They're all welcome contributors like everyone else. Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
• There is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing article deletion as the main thrust of your editing, no matter how much my inclusionist blood wants to scream otherwise. My only theoretical concern would be whether such a focus is masking a hidden WP:SPA or WP:Involved (meant WP:COI) agenda - i.e. do the deletion requests have a pattern serving covert purpose to remove commercial competition, delete subjects that are politically inconvenient, etc. To be absolutely clear, I have ZERO reason to believe this is the case here; it is simply a possibility of this kind of editing that might rear its head.VanIsaac_WS^cont
  • The listed user account was just an example to demonstrate that accounts with pure deletion activity exist, to anchor the discussion. You've outlined a scenario where this kind of activity would be used as a specific attack vector on a particular topic. However, it could be used more generally as well, by someone who just wants to do harm and doesn't care about the topics. Samsara 10:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about banning policy

Admins and editors may perhaps be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#One-way Ibans. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Review and Removal of RfC on Chad Wolf

I ask for review and removal of the RfC on Chad Wolfs page.

It is currently being used to display information in a misleading, out of order, manner. I provided opinion and suggestion in a new talk about how to change Chad Wolf's heading to read without confusing or burying of the lede.

The current RfC is being used as a shield against changes. Changes that are needed as Chad Wolf resigned his position and the current RfC heading confuses that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to start a new RfC, but the current one stands until one replaces it. I have reported you to WP:AN3 for repeatedly edit-warring your version in against the RfC consensus. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I ask for review, not from Tartan357, as his opinion is biased as a contributor of the RfC in question. The wording he adds to Chad Wolfs page is vague at best and misleading at worst.

If requested I will also create an Administer Notice to review his contributions above, knowing these things. Response is not needed by Tartan357 to this statements.

Tartan357 himself has just shown above that the current RfC is disputed, but has not added any contributions in the current talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not disputed, it received a formal admin close. I am merely enforcing that WP:CONSENSUS. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Understood. How do I ask that a confusing, out of order, misleading opening statement, that goes against the spirit of accurate information, protected by an RfC made before current job title changes... be removed?

And that a reflection of a current position not be buried after 5 commas deep until than? A talk, with suggestions, has been started as previously stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You start a talk page section like you did. But there has to actually be a discussion before you can make your change. Simply starting a discussion does not entitle you to ignore the existing consensus and force in your preferred version. Dispute resolution requires patience. I disagree with your characterization of the consensus text. I especially fail to see how it is misleading. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 10:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Both the IP (5RR) and Tartan357 (4RR) have been blocked for 24 hours for violating WP:3RR at Chad Wolf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It does appear Tartan was reinstating the RfC consensus from the “RfC: Describing legal status in lead” section. I always presumed reinstating a properly documented consensus was an uncontroversial exemption to edit warring restrictions. The last discussion on the 3RR talk on the matter seems to confirm the same, and it’s explicitly mentioned as such in the DS templates too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Per WP:3RRNO, it's not - except on AP2 DS pages. The twist being that Talk:Chad Wolf doesn't have the correct AP2 warning template - it has one that does not mention the exception. Somebody needs to (1) fix that and (2) make the "this is exempt" on {{American politics AE}} not hidden away behind a dropdown box. Anyway, I've unblocked Tartan357 with an apology and will be delivering a self-trouting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Contains fish
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

• • • {{American politics AE}} is not the default template for AP2 areas, it is used when admins want to add 1RR to articles (and should be logged on WP:AELOG in such cases I believe), and I think the disclaimer there only applies to the 1RR restriction which the template signifies. I don't know why it wouldn't be hidden behind the box, the dropdown contains extra info. Presumably admins enforcing will be familiar of those things before they enforce. No need to move more clutter out of the dropdown.

      It's not listed at WP:3RRNO, but I think it should be. The last discussion in the archives on the same page indicated that this is another example of an uncontroversial revert. Whilst I agree a report to ANEW and waiting is probably better, I have not seen an editor be blocked for enforcing the consensus of an RfC closed less than a month ago before, in any topic area. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

      Funnily enough, that template has 186 transclusions but the editnotice for it has 126. So either the discrepancy of 60 is caused by admins forgetting to create the editnotice, and so the sanctions being ineffective, or by non-admins mistakingly placing the template, and the template being misleading. Someone should probably look into it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

      ProcrastinatingReader, see you in a few hours Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

      ProcrastinatingReader, This seems to be caused by pages which are instead using {{Ds/editnotice|topic=ap|1RR}} Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

      And from that explanation above, it seems that the page wasn't under 1RR restrictions - and therefore the exemption technically didn't apply? Ai yi yi what a mess. And I'm not the first to have been tripped up by this either [62] - this is a problem. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not know what most of this above means. I am just trying to fix a page. While the first sentence is a correct statement; it is a misleading statement as to who Chad Wolf IS, not has been. Like the picture box on his page was changed because his position has changed... the entry text hasn't. I had to look up how to post here and after all this transclusions 1,2,3,4,5,RR stuff I know I don't know how to make an RfC. Could a few of you take a look at the Chad Wolf intro and new talk topic and do this RfC change thing if you think it needs one. thank you for your time, sorry for bringing up the the above errors whatever they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC) In response to Tartan357 failing to see how the intro is misleading: The first sentence makes a statement. How long and how many sentences and commas do you have to read before you dive into a nest of commas to see that the first statement no longer applies? ... how much longer into the paragraph do you have to read to figure out why it no longer applies? The intro paragraph RfC that Tartan357 closed, though technically correct, is garbage from an information point of view. And that is why I have asked for a review of an RfC that protects misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposal to change logo for 20th anniversary

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposal to change logo for 20th anniversary. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Brexit Party

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.

---

Brexit Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone protect this - there is an ongoing discussion about renaming it. But we have just had a declared Brexit Party member move it on the basis that the Party has decided so that is it. Needs a calming influence -----Snowded ^TALK 15:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

What are the Faragists called this week? GPinkerton (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is at Talk:Brexit Party#RfC regarding article split, and is still in progress. Britishfinance (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Move protected indefinitely. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Possible Aggressive IP user

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.

---

• 2603:7000:6F03:1CB8:E4CC:BD2B:3D83:749D (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not sure if this can be addressed here, but there's an IP user who was being somewhat disruptive on an article, and when they were warned on this, their response was in a tone that was quite aggressive. In fact, when I warned him his disruption was close to getting him potentially blocked if he continued, he was... rather rude. To be blunt, he 'bleeped' a swear at my message.

IP's talk page provides more details on behaviour. GUtt01 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Another admin blocked the IP for 48 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I've seen. Let's hope they learn to be civil in future. GUtt01 (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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

100 000 edit award

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#100 000 edit award and time to close AFD :: User:Davidgoodheart asked me what special happens when a user reaches the 100 000 edit award. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• What happens is that you're allowed to make edit #100,001. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, and your Wikipedia salary doubles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, I was told there'd be cake. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

There's always cake here. Paul August ☎ 00:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Cake or Death--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• The cake is a lie. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Anthony Appleyard: what happens is that they will receive an echo-notification (assuming that they didn't opt out of these) stating: You just made your hundred thousandth edit; thank you for an amazing contribution!. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? I don't remember that. Maybe I've forgotten or I opted out - I'm not big on badges and other geegaws like that. (Although I certainly appreciate barnstars on those rare occasions when people are kind enough to award them to me.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'd like it if it notified me of the edit before a nice round number. That way I could do something particularly big and constructive, like blocking Jimbo Nosebagbear (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

You can install the script which shows the number of edits got any user (including yourself).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I was notified for 10K edits (and I do get notified for 1, 10, and 100 edits made on other projects). I assume this is the default. The echo system was the only one who noticed I had 10K edits. --Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe you get a notification for every 10ⁿ edits Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Asartea: 10^n (n:0-7), your 100,000,000'th edit will sadly go unrecognized :D (see the text of these here) — xaosflux ^Talk 16:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, no one has made anywhere near 100 million edits, so this is moot. 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs)

I can not easily find the table, but I believe there are Wikidata bots with few million edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, seems to me like its bug report time Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Bots don't really care about echo-thanks - but there are 2 approaching according to this query. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I got no cake, myself — didn't even know that it happened until the IP I was conversing with at the time was like: btw, congrats on reaching 100K edits. So, at least there was that.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Personally, I like Boston cream pie -- which is a cake -- and icebox cake -- which is cookies covered with whipped cream and frozen. And I hear that yellow cake uranium is highly sought after. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I've recently cracked 93,000 edits, so it's good to know that I've got an automated echo notification to look forward to in 7,000 edits time! Nick-D (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Do I get a Key lime pie at 150,000? I like pie. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Page protection backlog

Hi. There's a backlog at WP:RFPP going back to the 12th Jan. Please could someone take a look and action where needed? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who've helped out this afternoon. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

SiberMusic talk page abuse

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

---

There is an abuse of talk page access from this user.

Dear MarioJump83!,

You still haven't given us a valid reason to reject our item. If you do not give it, we will be forced to take drastic measures.

Borna B. Siber Music LLC.

MarioJump83!

We can send you the screenshot that Marino B. is Ownrer of Siber Music. IF YOU DON'T BELIVE THAT SIBER MUSIC EXISTS SEARCH ON YOUTUBE "Siber Music" NAD YOU'LL SEE OFFICIAL ARTIST CHANNEL, OR SEARCH ON SPOTIFY OR WHATEVER MHSIC STREAMING PLATFORM!!!!!!!! AND READ BIO ON YOUTUBR MUSIC OF SIBER MUSIC!!!!!!

NOT BEST REGARDS, Borna B. Siber Music LLC.

Please consider revoking their talk page access. MarioJump83! 11:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Although not a legal threat explicitly, it sure reads like one. Generally an "LLC" doesn't threaten a user with this sort of verbiage unless it intends to take that user to court. Whatever the case may be, this would be a WP:CIV indef block.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and they've declared themselves to be a paid user.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Change to the Checkuser team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser permissions of Ivanvector (talk · contribs) have been restored. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Checkuser team

John C. Eastman BLP

Please note the banner on the page:

“A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (January 2021)”

Now please note this in light of recent developments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_C._Eastman&diff=1000351198&oldid=1000350974

soibangla (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked per BLP and NLT, and I'm taking a revdel to some of their edit summaries on Arthur Chu as both disruptive and potentially BLP violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ban removal request of 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.

---

• SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

As a courtesy I am posting the following statement from SashiRolls to request the removal of their community ban. I make no endorsement of the request by doing so. I received it by email. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

With these two paragraphs, I am requesting the standard offer.  I have continued being a productive wikimedia/mediawiki citizen while serving the maximum possible sentence, and am aware that this "community ban" is nothing to be sneezed at in the family of wp sites that I work on.  Since I was blocked,  I've limited my contribs to ht.wp, fr.wp, simple.wp, possibly meta.wp & Wikidata.  During that time, I've noticed that one does not encounter quite the same problems outside of a few areas on en.wp.  I have also worked on my own mediawiki installation quite a bit.  I will avoid the behaviour that led to the block.  As I bear no grudges, I don't see the point rehashing those matters in detail as I have no desire for my reauthorization to contribute to parts of the English Wikipedia to lead to any battles in the community.  That, too, is part of the wisdom of the standard offer.

My earliest account's contribs to en.wp were in 2006, though I've long since forgotten the password to that account and prefer my current pseudo.  I fully intend to continue participating on projects across wikimedia domains in this, WPs third decade. I have respected MastCell's block on en.wp since it was made, and since ArbCom ruled that they did not have the power to overturn it since it was within administrator discretion.  I was glad to see that when they kicked it back to the community, who changed policy so no other user would have such a hurried judgment passed on their work.  I am not requesting any special dispensations, just the authorization to return to contributing productively and with civility to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  I've seen quite a few pages that need work where I'm authorized to contribute. (These pages are not in the notorious problem areas where I ran into conflict with contributors that I will avoid in future.)

From SashiRolls' talkpage:
Some of the projects I am currently interested in, for information:

1. learning more about the citation templates, in an effort to be able to help make them more easily translatable between projects (cf. my user page at Wikidata). I am quite interested in the Wiki Function project...
2. jazz: I've noticed a fair number of things that can be improved on pages related to jazz, some of which are mentioned above on my talk page.
3. US Senate confirmation hearings: A (disambiguation?) page on this 1787-present history topic should probably be created in Wikipedia's 3rd decade of existence. (I will only be able to work on the pre-1932 elements of this page, but a disambiguation page can already be created with exclusively pre-1932 elements)

I have attempted to offer en.wp a gift for its 3rd decade: an offer to continue to provide volunteer labor, letting bygones be bygones. It appears that a number of people active in the recent US politics area still wish to exclude me, despite the fact that I am not asking to participate in that area.

I am well into my third decade of teaching now, having taught at all levels from primary school to Masters level and continuing education. I have worked in difficult situations (particularly in middle schools (e.g. religious minority schools at particularly difficult times, a reform school)) and in much easier ones (university, professional training, work with recent immigrants). I have a long history of working on "knowledge equity" not only at various MW sites but also, for example, at CTLF, at JAD, as well as on my own site (sometimes using mediawiki, sometimes using other markup tools). I am a published translator and writer. I also have a long-standing interest in NLP. Here, for example, is a very recent example of some colorful possibilities that simple "character styles" afford English-language teachers to help language-learners to understand the verbal system in English.

Again: I bear no grudges and I am not asking to be permitted to contribute to en.wp's notorious problem areas. Outside of these "recentist" areas, I have actually been involved in very little conflict. I am requesting this reinstatement of contribution privileges because I have something to bring to the table and because the current situation prevents me from working fully in other areas of the WP universe (I cannot for example create test pages in user-space to look into the Cite Q template on en.wp and must put up with being reminded I've been blocked each time I wish to copy a reference from en.wp to *.wp) This is a great chance to show that English Wikipedia is indeed a project that anyone can edit, as long as they follow the rules, and is not a website where anyone can "be diagnosed" or a site where personal grudges and turf war battle-grounding are the guiding lights.

ps: I have not contacted anybody about this request prior to their participation. I did send both El C and Boing! a short email after they gave their opinion: in El C's case it was to thank them for their many reasonable paragraphs, and in Boing!'s case it was for another reason unrelated to en.wp.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to be the 1st to support, as I feel somewhat responsible and still have a bad taste about how it all ended up going down. Likely, SashiRolls will continue poking at me on Wikipediocracy (yes, I am an avid reader — gotta get my daily fix of Vigilant, yo!), which is fine. But at least they'd be some 2-way communication, if he's ever interested. So, I am hoping to get a snowball rolling toward welcoming SashiRolls back to the English Wikipedia. Hopefully, the key role (though unwittingly) I played in his ban can carry extra weight to see this happen. El_C 21:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• This appears to be the discussion in which SashiRolls was CBANned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I made my opposition to the ban clear during the original discussion, so I won't repeat it all here. SashiRolls is a productive editor who genuinely cares about this project. And I think the biggest problem is perhaps caring too much sometimes, about relatively minor things that really don't warrant the resulting passion. I see SashiRolls as someone who genuinely tries to address problems, but sometimes not in the right way. The promises above are what I'd hoped would be the outcome of the ban discussion, and I hope we get to see if the approach works. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

  Oh, and kudos to El_C for taking such a constructive approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral I'm a firm believer in meatball:ForgiveAndForget but reading my rationale from the ban discussion, I'm not sure I'm willing to forget so quickly. My reason for supporting the ban went beyond their conduct towards El_C, and I said explicitly that I supported regardless of that spat because of the longer pattern. Now, of course, people can change, and we should encourage them to, and we should reward it when they change for the better. The comment by El_C certainly influences me as do Sashi's contributions on other projects (You can see them here). That said, a ban was not trivial to build consensus for and if unbanning is a mistake it may be difficult to do again. This isn't the usual WP:ROPE situation and we really need to consider whether the community can (or wants to) handle the potential time sink that would come with a reversion to old behavior. I don't have a firm opinion yet, but I wanted to point out what sticking points I still have so that others (especially Sashi) have time to address them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've restored talk page access while this discussion is ongoing so that Sashi can participate without needing to email someone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• I am concerned about this statement in SR's unblock request: "I've noticed that one does not encounter quite the same problems outside of a few areas on en.wp" which, to me, is indicative of an attitude that the problems he was blocked over are systemic en.wiki problems, and not caused by their own actions. Because of this I have strong doubts about their sincerity in the rest of the request in the light of their long history of disruptive behavior, and about their ability to change their patterns of behavior. That they have edited elsewhere without problems is certainly encouraging, but is not -- at this time -- sufficient to overcome their past record. Therefore, I oppose lifting the CBAN without prejudice to a future request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral, because although they've stayed away for six months and constructively contributed to other projects, the disruption was long-standing and this unblock request seems like lip service - and the mention of "hurried judgment" makes me suspect that grudges may still be held. If they return the previous restrictions need to apply and any future blocks should be indefinite by default. Fences&Windows 01:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I was against the block in the first place and nothing presented suggests that SR's did anything to violate the block or further antagonize the situation. Springee (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. This editor was unblocked in November 2018.[63] In that unblock discussion, numerous editors warned that this editor would resume the same problematic behavior that got them topic-banned from various areas, and which had earned them warnings from administrators for harassment, edit-warring, incivility, and other tendentious behavior. As predicted, post-unblock, the editor got temporarily blocked in June 2019, August 2019, October 2019, February 2020, and June 2020[64], as well was subjected to civility-related sanctions in May 2019, given an interaction ban in May 2019, and topic-banned from Am Politics in February 2020[65] before being indefinitely blocked in June 2020. Is there any editor who has run up as many sanctions in as short of a period? Note that this all happened after the editor had already been unblocked once and promised to be on their best behavior. Aside from their tendentious behavior and awful contributions to the topic areas of American politics and GMOs, the editor has spent much of their time before, during and after all these blocks on off-wiki forums expressing grievances about editors and the ways they edit the encyclopedia. The line "I've noticed that one does not encounter quite the same problems outside of a few areas on en.wp." alludes to the editor's belief that numerous editors on the English Wikipedia are conspiring together in a "cabal" against them. In their 2018 unblock request, they specifically tried to alleviate concerns about incivility and harassment by promising, "I have no intention of tracking down any more socking sysops, nor do I intend to lay down evidence of any further wrong-doings by anyone in the inner cabal, not to worry."[66] The editor did not adhere to this promise, as post-unblock, they relentlessly and baselessly cast aspersions on other editors, accusing them of surreptitiously working together or editing for pay. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Snooganssnoogans; if unblocked, we will be back here with complaints within three months and the cycle will continue. Enough is enough.--Jorm (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a highly intelligent person who has expertise that could be useful to the encyclopedia in theory. In practice, they are drawn to conflict and confrontation like a moth to a flame, because of aspects of their personality that other Wikipedia editors cannot fully understand, but all of us can see play out, over and over and over again. Just look at their blocks and bans. The fact that several of their opponents were also tendentious and disruptive is not an ameliorating factor. Instead, it shows their repeated and compulsive attraction to the honeypot of confrontation, tendentious editing and endless argumentation. We simply do not need editors with characteristics like this. We need level headed people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018, with "considerable skepticism of unblocking" and subsequently racked up five blocks in less than two years (two of which were undone by the blocking admin), plus four other sanctions, until the ban was reimposed in June 2020. It's clear that unblock was a mistake which wasted plenty of time from constructive editors. I think we'll have to assume that something similar will happen if the block is undone this time. Even apart from that the unblock request doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Hut 8.5 10:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Opposeothers have made some good points about how we've been here before and the unblock was a mistake. But this request is also the sort of request where the editor says they've learnt, but most of the rest of the request seems to be spent demonstrating to us they haven't. When I looked at discussion that lead up to the re-ban, along with the arbcom case that came after, I'm not surprised to see the same. Of course they could have learnt in the 5-6 months, but clearly they haven't as they apparently didn't last time. It's clear that they're able to contribute productively, unfortunately they are unable to do so without also causing enough problems that harm outweighs the good. Nil Einne (talk) 11:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support I didn't vote on the original ban. I don't know what to make of the vote. The first 20 votes all favored a ban while the next 40 were evenly divided. While SashiRolls showed poor judgment in the past, I think it is normal after 6 months to reconsider the ban and give them another chance. TFD (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Snooganssnoogans. By offering in their appeal that their ban was erroneous because it was enacted too quickly (in their opinion, though within policy at the time) shows that they don't think they have anything to learn from it. Someone who has said "I've learned, I'll do better" and was so shortly reblocked for the same behaviour so many times, and spends their time away harassing users via Wikipediocracy, doesn't belong on this project. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral at present. Like BMK, I stumbled when I got to "[at ht.wp, fr.wp, simple.wp, possibly meta.wp & Wikidata] I've noticed that one does not encounter quite the same problems outside of a few areas on en.wp" in Sashi's unblock request. I find it very worrying. It does suggest that he thinks his "problems" are systemic en.wiki problems rather than his actions. Perhaps Sashi can elaborate on what he meant by it. Of course I'm also concerned by Snooganssnoogans's list of block and bans, and by the way Sashi squandered second and third chances before being eventually indeffed. Bishonen | tålk 13:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC).
• Support. As said Boing! said Zebedee, SashiRolls is a productive editor. SashiRolls's statement looks very convincing as they have demonstrated contributing to other WMF projects. It is also convincing that El_C is supporting unblock (for the reasons El_C explains). Politrukki (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see much self-reflection or taking of responsibility in this request, just complaining (incorrectly) that their ban was "hurried judgment" and saying vaguely that they will "avoid the behavior that led to the block" without admitting what it was. They had a chance to return to productive editing in November 2018 and that did not work out; I don't believe that they will be able to avoid conflict and we should take the chance of more editors' time being wasted by further disruption. P-K3 (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per El C and Boing and standard offer. (I still disagree with how that site ban was imposed and I'm glad we changed the rules so that sort of thing won't happen again.) Sashi doesn't have problems editing anywhere except a narrow slice of enwiki. As long as they stay away from that area, and they said they would, they're a productive editor, which has been repeatedly demonstrated both on this project and other projects. Levivich ^harass/_hound 15:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - it stinks being banned. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Snooganssnoogans comment here summarizes the past issues very well, as does the beginning of the original site ban proposal [67] at AN, ArbCom appeal[68], and ban review[69]. So much happened between that and Dennis Brown's 2016 block this is a last chance for SashiRolls to be a member of the community. . .[70] In all of that, Sashirolls was banned in part because the community was just exhausted with trying to deal with their toxic behavior (from more than just a narrow slice of WP) and the time sinks it created whenever editors tried to get help with it at admin boards. Much of that had to do with Sashirolls' WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDHT behavior outlined in those links, and I have yet to see anyone else actually having a a ban related to posting at WP:AE itself[71], which should illustrate how serious the issues got and the high bar needed for reentry.

As others have mentioned above, this appeal shows no serious self-reflection and more NOTTHEM behavior. Prior to the ban, they had chance after chance after chance and kept squandering those. This appeal doesn't differentiate itself from all those past times, so the supports would need to go well beyond just saying it's been a few months, give them another chance. . . againⁿ since this has been repeating itself for years. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. If this unban request is good enough for El_C, then it's good enough for me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support per El C and Boing. Reblocks are cheap but effective and productive editors are not. Would welcome back the valued contributions but not the conflicts - I trust SR has learned from the previous events. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't know the editor, but somebody with this kind of block log is more trouble than they're worth to the project. Sandstein 19:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I've objected to the ban in the original discussion, and I support a lift both for the rationale given by me then, and that stated by Boing! now. I'm not irked by the statement on "a few areas on en.wp", which some commenters view as denying responsibility, since it is a fact of Wikipedia that battlegrounds beget battleground behavior, as much as the other way around is true. François Robere (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Never should have been banned in the first place. The ban discussion was poorly-handled and too many participants failed to actually look deeply at the evidence. As for the fragment of the unblock request that's being heavily analzyed above, I suspect that many Wikipedians fail to fully appreciate just how problematic this community has become. "I've noticed that one does not encounter quite the same problems outside of a few areas on en.wp" Have any of you considered that maybe Sashi has a point? Many of us have had more than our fair share of toxic experiences here, and Sashi was the subject of a nasty site ban discussion. I think his observation is more insightful than it is alarming. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, I'll point out that SashiRolls is under a 1-way IBAN with respect to me, so no one else has to point it out. Like El C, I look at Wikipediocracy from time to time, and I've noticed that SashiRolls comments about me there, often in discussions where no one else has brought up anything about me, or comments about me after his post (including a comment about what namespaces I have and have not recently edited in, made just six days ago). So when I see "I bear no grudges" said here not once but twice, along with "let bygones be bygones" and yet referring to other editors who "still wish to exclude" him, I'm skeptical. Yes, I know that en-wiki IBANS do not apply to WPO – of course – but it's clear that he has not really put me or other editors he has had bad interactions with completely out of his thoughts, and saying repeatedly here that he wants to put it all behind him does nothing to demonstrate that he recognizes his own fault in that history. He has "respected" MastCell's block? What does that mean, he hasn't evaded the block? He is appealing as a "gift" to Wikipedia? That he wants us to help him "show that English Wikipedia is indeed a project that anyone can edit, as long as they follow the rules, and is not a website where anyone can "be diagnosed" or a site where personal grudges and turf war battle-grounding are the guiding lights"? It's not for the community to show that. It's for the person making the appeal to show that they really have learned from their mistakes – not simply to steer clear of some topic, but to steer clear of previous patterns of conduct. And this is the same pattern we have seen from him, over and over and over again. This wouldn't be a second chance, or a third. At the ArbCom request, he said "I will agree that I react badly to being continually targeted by a small group not representative of the larger en.wp community of contributors." ([72], see also [73]). Is that recognizing his own need to do better, or is it like saying I'm just sorry that you treated me so badly? WP:SO is like a second chance, not a bazzillionth chance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Adding: His talk page access was restored in order to participate in this appeal, which is appropriate. But why had it been revoked? Because, while site-banned by the community, he was attempting on his talk page to solicit proxy edits on his behalf by other editors: [74]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Oddly enough, the admin who revoked his TPA for 'proxying' had requested that Sashi post some sources. After Sashi complied with this request, JzG deleted their own comment and yanked TPA. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Tryptofish and KoA and Sandstein. SR has had plenty of chances to show they can be a productive editor and they just keep proving that they can't. Even saying above they are ready to forget and move on, but posts on other sites show different. No one person is so indispensible that we must over look all the strife they caused just so they could write here. Valeince (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. The single clause he pulls out speaks volumes: I've noticed that one does not encounter quite the same problems outside of a few areas on en.wp. Without further explanation and clarification, I can't help but read this as a sua culpa—in short, blaming someone (everyone) else. I see no real reflection or understanding of why the ban was necessary. Even a begrudging understanding would be nice to see. I sort of understand the grounds claimed for vacating the ban—that because SR doesn't want to participate in the topic areas where past problems occurred (and perhaps will commit to avoiding those areas) the ban is unnecessary to protect the Community and therefore becomes punitive. I believe this argument addresses a necessary element of an unban request—that it will no longer be necessary—but is not sufficient on its own. Even when the standard offer is invoked. Some understanding of why the ban occurred must be evident. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that the request appears to have been withdrawn. I find some of the language used there kind of irksome insofar as it looks like a doubling down on the failure to accept fault. Sometimes, as Marcel Mauss explained, gifts are not so easy to accept.—I'm not familiar with Mauss, but a 30-second search suggests that the reason gifts would not be easy to accept is because reciprocity is expected (in the cultures Mauss explored). I'll give the noticeboard role-players --and those who have explicitly stated they will not abuse the lifting of their topic ban from discussing me -- some more time to reflect on their behaviour and ask again sometime in the future. I don't even know where to begin here. Calling AN/ANI regulars "role-players" seems insulting, as does the statement that the participants in this discussion should reflect on their own behavior. The reference to "those who have explicitly stated..." is a mystery to me, but it sounds like an accusation that some participants in this discussion were motivated by a grudge. ... it is obvious at this point that there is still no consensus concerning my banning. This closing line is also very troubling; the original siteban was instituted with there having been a finding of consensus. A denial that consensus existed is the antithesis of accepting the ban and underlying behavior. In all I think the withdrawal statement hammers home why this siteban should not be lifted. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support, for several reasons. First, SashiRolls states, I will avoid the behaviour that led to the block, and I've seen quite a few pages that need work where I'm authorized to contribute... not in the notorious problem areas where I ran into conflict with contributors that I will avoid in future. Second, my observations of SashiRolls' edits over the years are consistent with what Boing! said Zebedee writes, SashiRolls is a productive editor who genuinely cares about this project. Third, SashiRolls' oblique comment suggesting that there are problem areas of en wiki is both diplomatic and accurate. Lastly, the admin El_C whose conflict with SashiRolls contributed to their ban has written, above, that they were unhappy the conflict ended with SashiRoll's ban. Given all these things I hope the community will accept SashiRolls' request to continue editing. -Darouet (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fool us 3 times, shame on you. Fool us 4 times, shame on us (modified to make the community look less foolish). If that's too cutesy, then per Tryptofish. We already have direct evidence what happens when they're given another chance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per BMK. The comment about not encountering "the same problems" outside of en.wiki carries a strong suggestion that SR has not acknowledged the issues with their own conduct that led to the ban in the first place, but rather regards it as a problem with the community. To consider an unblock, I would like to see full introspection and confronting the issue head-on, with concrete indicators as to how things will be different next time around. I don't think an offer to just stay away from a few areas of the wiki really constitutes that.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to reinstate removal of talk page access

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

---

Since withdrawing this appeal, SashiRolls has made a snarky comment about me (without actually using my username) on his talk page, referring to the fact that I commented here having previously been under a 2-way IBAN ([75]). Pretty ironic, given that he is still under a 1-way IBAN, which he now appears to have violated. His talk page access had previously been revoked but was reinstated in order to make this appeal. That reason no longer applies. Please revoke his talk page access once again. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Sashi was referring to the fact that when you appealed your 2-way iban into a 1-way iban, you said And I think it's clear that I can be trusted. I plan to continue to voluntarily avoid the other editor. I don't want contact with them, and I have zero interest in editing the content areas where they edit, and avoiding them is just the right thing to do. I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated. Yet you've come out of retirement to lobby against Sashi every time Sashi is discussed on-wiki. Sashi appears to be citing this as part of the reason they withdrew their request. I don't think that's cause to revoke TPA (which shouldn't have been revoked in the first place, since the admin who revoked it was also the admin only editor other than Sashi who posted a message asking a question in the first place). I think Sashi not fighting the original TPA revocation, and their quick withdrawal of this unban request, goes a long way to demonstrating that Sashi is not interested in causing disruption. We should all just be grateful for that and get back to encyclopedia-building (or retirement or whatever), rather than causing more drama with an unnecessary TPA revocation request. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Partly stricken/rephrased. Levivich ^harass/_hound 22:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

How about that bridge I was going to buy from you? If you cannot win the argument on the merits, change the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, Levivich has confirmed that SashiRolls used his talk page to violate the existing IBAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I can also confirm this horse is dead. Levivich ^harass/_hound 19:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

[76]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I-ban violation aside for Sashirolls, it's unfortunate Levivich is continuing to use admin boards about Sashi to hound Tryptofish. Part of the hope with Sashi's ban was to hopefully diffuse other editors who were going after those harassed by Sashirolls as Tryptofish was. Considering Levivich had been explicitly warned about tendentious behavior at ANI[77] that TonyBallioni opened, maybe it's time work on an I-ban for Levivich from matters related to Sashirolls or other editors? The battleground mentality from them of trying to constantly downplay Sashi's behavior and then project it back on to those who have had to deal with Sashi's attacks is starting to get rather sickening, especially when followed by comments like We should all just be grateful. . .

Of course talk page access for Sashi should be restricted again as it was only for the purpose of the appeal. This is a standard follow-up request. The badgering of those trying to get the countless problems with Sashi to stop are getting to be quite enough. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That's not going to fly. Levi isn't doing anything wrong, and I'd recommend that you stop trying to create a chilling effect by misrepresenting an ANI thread from 8 months ago. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds here. First, the TPA was restored to participate in this request, which has been withdrawn; as such the circumstance for which TPA was restored no longer exists and it should be removed. On the other hand, I believe there was a point made somewhere above that the revocation of TPA was not necessary in the first place, and while I found the comment that led to this subthread irksome and evident of an attitude contrary to one needed for the ban being lifted (as I noted above), I think that given the context (a just-failed unban request) some leeway is normally granted for lashing out. In short, I think TPA should be revoked unless the original reason it was revoked is no longer valid. I don't think the new comment forms an independent reason to revoke. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• I think there are serious questions about the legitimacy of the original TPA revocation, and we should not revert back to that status quo until those questions have been satisfactorily addressed. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Oooh, "serious questions"! Well, well, well, we must be really concerned about that! So very serious that months passed with nobody raising them. Maybe it's the Deep State.

I think that it's shameful that no admin has acted on a very simple request that I made. Instead this sub-thread has just been festering here. And, it is simple. There was a long-standing community ban with talk page access revoked. The reason for restoring talk page access has passed. In the interim, whether it was venting or not, an IBAN was violated (and there were plenty of ways to vent without going straight to making it about me). Remove talk page access, close this thread, and if anyone really has additional issues to raise, raise a new complaint. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you asked the admin who restored TPA to revoke it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're only interested in being obnoxious, you'll find plenty of opportunities for that on Reddit or YouTube. I don't know why you expect our admins to jump at the sound of your voice, but AN wasn't meant to be a repository for the demands of ostensibly retired editors. The reasons for the original revocation remain puzzling, and such a simple observation shouldn't prompt you to throw a mini temper tantrum. JzG asked Sashi to provide links to sources, Sashi provided the links, and then JzG removed his initial comment and revoked TPA on the grounds that Sashi was proxying. That was the reason for the revocation, and it seems highly dubious to me. We shouldn't reinstate it just because you asked semi-nicely. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed this subsection and request (been real busy elsewhere on the wiki, sorry), and upon having looked into the talk page revocation, what Lepricavark just said above reflects my own view 100 percent. Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm talking about the second half that starts with "JzG" — not the first ("obnoxious") half, whose tone and tenor I disapprove of. Also noting, of course, that I am very much recused from using any admin tools on Sashi (for or against) for the rest of my natural days. El_C 02:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You're quite right. I should've known better than to respond in kind to Trypto's provocation, and so I've struck the offending portion of my comment.LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• I granted talk page access for the purpose of the appeal which has now concluded, and so I have restored the previous block settings. If the original TPA revocation was improper, then we need to come to a consensus on that, but we shouldn't set a precedent that editors can get talk page access restored just by filing an appeal. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• We should extend the indefinite block. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Closing of Mike DeWine RFC for the Impeachment Resolution Section

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.

---

Request administrator assistance, currently at Talk:Mike DeWine#RFC for the Impeachment Resolution Section.

The Redirect has been deleted.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Kiki Camarena RfC

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'm requesting that this RfC at Talk:Kiki Camarena be re-closed. S Marshall's close stated that this text [78] did not have consensus for inclusion at Kiki Camarena; the close ignored available reliable sources and directly contradicted a clear RfC consensus:

1. . WP:CONSENSUS - 6 out of 9 editors argued that the text should be included in the article body and lead, and 5 out of 6 non-involved editors argued the same.
2. . Editors arguing for inclusion noted that WP:SECONDARY and tertiary WP:RS treat the allegations "extremely seriously" (e.g. [79][80][81][82]), and that arguments against inclusion were based on WP:OR.

S Marshall ignored both media and academic sources, and the consensus of editor arguments, in his close, effectively using the close as a supervote. He has acknowledged that his close opposed the editorial judgement of the community contributing to the RfC on his talk page: "I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved" [83]. -Darouet (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse Close The closer ruled, in several cases in question 2, lack of a consensus in support of an edit which is qualitatively different than a consensus against said edit; it seems consistent with the flow of discussion, and consideration of some include !votes which were more or less WP:VAGUEWAVEs. The closer's Talk page comment is ambiguous and could be interpreted in several ways; I don't think it's a smoking gun of supervoting. (Also, on the matter of question #3 I'm not getting the same numbers as the challenger; by my count, only three of nine editors explicitly supported adding text to the lead.) That said, the closer's judgment on Q4 seems to be on a question that wasn't asked in the RfC and didn't naturally emerge in discussion. However, it appears simply to be the editor's personal advice for next steps. Finally, the editor's decision on Question 1 doesn't appear to be in dispute by the challenger. Chetsford (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC); edited 04:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. This is at least the third time a close by S Marshall has been brought here for review since June. Both previous reviews resulted in overturns (see here and here) after consensus developed that SM supervoted in his close. Based on my initial reading of this new discussion, that appears to be the case once again. -- Calidum 04:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• In fact, if you examine User:S Marshall/RfC close log and its archives, you'll see that my closes have been reviewed many times on the admininistrator's noticeboard since 2014, and on the vast majority of occasions, I've been resoundingly endorsed.—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• Closer: Darouet misrepresents what I said on my talk page, he misrepresents my close, and he totally misrepresents the arithmetic. Chetsford has it right.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The RfC was a simple one: "Should we include a section on possible CIA participation in Camarena's interrogation, and his case more broadly, using this text at least, [84] and based on these sources?" The link that explains "this text at least" includes lead text that summarizes the issue. Fully six editors asked to "include" the text, and only a tortured distortion of their comments can argue that these "include" votes implied inclusion of some of the text, but not other parts.
  • As I already stated, 5 out of 6 non-involved editors endorsed inclusion.
  • S Marshall, as to your own comment on your talk page - what did you mean when you wrote "I live in hope that the community's editorial judgment has improved", other than that you disagreed with the editorial judgements of editors commenting on the RfC? At best Chetsford states your comment "is ambiguous," and you've offered no other interpretation. -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It's not the numbers at all, Darouet. Don't count the words in bold: read. In fact that was a near-unanimous consensus to include the disputed information. When closing I observed that all the editors who said "include" were talking about the principle of including it. None of the editors who said "Oppose as written" were opposed to including it -- their objections were to your specific wording. And that's why my first finding was to include the disputed information.
      However, in that whole discussion, the only editor who supported your exact wording was you, and there was substantial and well-argued opposition to it. For this reason, in my finding #2, you are required to engage with the opposing editors and find a wording that includes the disputed information while respecting their well-founded concerns.
      And what I meant by my other remark is that I hope editors in this close review display better editorial judgment than in other recent disputes. I don't mind being overturned by the community: it's happened to everyone who's got any business closing discussions of this kind. But I dislike being overturned by people who've !voted without reading, understanding and reflecting on the disputed discussion, as has happened to me several times of late.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      So in your view, the editors who wrote "oppose as written" supported including the section but not as written by the proposer, and the editors who wrote "include" also supported including the section but not as written by the proposer? Levivich ^harass/_hound 05:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

      • Levivich summarizes the absurdity of the close perfectly - editors supporting inclusion by a 2:1 margin are worse than ignored - their comments and reasoning are reversed. It’s a catch-22. -Darouet (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
• Let me break down my reasoning in more detail for you, Levivich.

1. Darouet writes an RfC in which he proposes to include six (6) paragraphs about alleged CIA complicity in the torture and murder of an American citizen.
2. Half a dozen editors support him.
3. Three editors pop up to oppose the specific wording that Darouet proposes. The concerns about wording are generally expressed late in the debate.
4. A large discussion ensues, with Darouet participating very heavily indeed, but little input from his previous supporters.

So I arrive and ask myself how to close it. Noting point (1), I decide to close it with utmost caution. Noting point (2), I close it in favour of including the disputed information. Noting points (3) and (4), I decide that although the disputed information may be included, the specific wording Darouet proposes doesn't enjoy consensus support and must be tweaked in consultation with the opposers, so as to take account of their concerns. Then I write this up as an RfC close and supply a few ancillary directions which are meant to enable Darouet to add the disputed information without having to go to a second RfC about exact wording.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks a lot simpler to me: an edit was proposed, and six editors were in favor of the edit while three were in favor of including the content in some form but not as written. There was no policy-based reason to discount the !votes of those who supported making the edit. That's consensus to include. Overturn to "include". Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I am one of the non-involved editors brought to the RfC by RS/N. The closing editor makes several clear policy errors, and is egregiously partial:

1. Suitability as closer.

In their closing, the editor states The claim that the CIA was somehow involved or connected with Camarena's murder is of course an extraordinary one, and it requires in-text attribution to a specific source as well as an inline citation that directly supports the claim. The proposed addition is also long enough to raise concerns that it might give undue prominence to what may well be no more than a conspiracy theory. The notion that the claim, supported by multiple peer-reviewed academic sources, is of course an extraordinary one, is either based on an unsourced assertion by one involved editor, or a view that the closing editor brings to the discussion. Neither is appropriate. Similarly, the notion that it may well be no more than a conspiracy theory is either based on an unsourced assertion by one involved editor, or a view that closing editor brings to the discussion. Using assertions not based on policy, made by a single editor, as the basis for summarising consensus suggests a level of preconception, conscious or not, which disqualifies the editor as suitable for closing the RfC.

2. Misrepresenting !votes

The RfC question was not ambiguous: Should we include a section [...] using this text at least, and based on these sources? [my emphasis]. Those putting the case for inclusion were voting for the inclusion of the text by Darouet. The closing editor seeks to confuse the issue by creating four questions, where one was asked. They double down on this in the discussion above stating When closing I observed that all the editors who said "include" were talking about the principle of including it. The editor did not in fact make this observation, an astute choice on their part, given that any reasonable person can see it is obviously incorrect: they were talking about inclusion of Darouet’s text.

3. If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy.

Of the 5 non-involved editors supporting the inclusion of Darouet's text, all of them mention adequate reliable sources as the relevant policy, with 3 mentioning the prohibition on original research negating the extensive unsourced arguments against inclusion. All of which is ignored in the close. A disinclination to get involved in arguments amounting to attempts to disparage scholarly work, through amateur original research and attacks on the concept of scholarship (!) is surely understandable. Yet the closer claims here that they used this to infer a lack of consensus. The closing editor has not fulfilled what is expected as per the above.

Given that RfC closes are not binding, and the open bias in this instance, I don't see that the close has any relevance to the discussion about this disputed content. Cambial foliage❧ 15:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• –A content RfC is binding, unless and until consensus emerges that it's been superseded. That's why we have them at all: they're a way to resolve intractable content disputes. It's also the only reason why we need to have a mechanism for challenging and reviewing RfC closes. And closers are expected to show good judgment. Anyone who couldn't see that the allegation of CIA involvement in the torture and murder of a US citizen is an extraordinary one requiring extraordinary evidence, has no business closing an RfC of any kind whatsoever.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

  No-one could accuse you of being shy in demonstrating your bias. Large parts of the English-speaking world would consider the possibility of such an occurrence as practically a truism, both in and out of scholarship. Yet you presume to know better, and pretend it is disinterested. As I said, totally unsuitable as a closer, something you ought to have taken the time to consider before seeking to make what has understandably been referred to as a "supervote". Cambial foliage❧ 00:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• A content RfC is binding, unless and until consensus emerges that it's been superseded. I mean, what that means is that a content RfC is binding until it isn't. Obviously we always have to go by consensus, but even the most uncontroversial RfC with the most clear and obvious outcome provides only a single snapshot onto consensus at a single moment in time. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Saying this is largely supported by academic sources is a stretch. One of the sources is a book published by an unknown author with only 1 piece published. One is a book review, another is a passing comment. The “RS” cited, that I checked, barely make any such and instead attribute it to one lawyer and a bunch of unnamed alleged witnesses and then pose a question. There is no evidence of any kind, rather pure speculation. This has all the hallmarks, and the distinct smell, of being a conspiracy theory. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  This is not the place to "relitigate" the RfC, but to discuss the various ways in which the close did not follow policy. If you have further comments on the sources proposed, use the article talk page. Making grossly misleading, and flatly wrong, characterisations of the book (professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin ≠ unknown author) and other sources (two book reviews published in well-established peer-reviewed journals) will be equally unhelpful and pointless there. Cambial foliage❧ 15:49, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• I would argue that based on the closing rationale above, another RFC should be run immediately. Holding another RFC immediately after a previous one is unusual, but there are situations where it is appropriate, especially if a previous RFC plainly left key aspects unexamined, failed to resolve the core question, or if there were later developments that need consideration. And in this case the rationale for the close is Three editors pop up to oppose the specific wording that Darouet proposes. The concerns about wording are generally expressed late in the debate. A large discussion ensues, with Darouet participating very heavily indeed, but little input from his previous supporters. In other words, the reasoning is that there was a late development that most of the RFC didn't consider - but that means that the concerns used to decide it were only discussed at the RFC by four people at most and only for a very brief time; an RFC that barely considered something the closer identified as a key aspect is a weak consensus at best and can't reasonably be said to have resolved the underlying dispute. The appropriate thing to do in that case is to have a second RFC, running longer and with more participation, focusing on those concerns specifically. People above and below are warning against relitigating the RFC in a request to overturn it, which is valid, but the main reason those points are getting "re"-litigated here is because, due to being raised so late in the RFC, they were never properly litigated in the RFC itself, which indicates further discussion is needed. Also, I would argue that in situations like this (where an RFC has a point that seems significant raised late in its runtime), the best way to handle it is to relist it in order to get more discussion on that aspect rather than closing it in a way that disregards earlier opinions and basically decides it based only on the last handful - there is no rush. --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: 4 out of 6 editors who favor including the text as written address the some or all concerns of the 3 editors who oppose it. I think we can accept a 2:1 RfC outcome while still refining the text in question, since the question posed by the RfC, Should we include a section on possible CIA participation in Camarena's interrogation, and his case more broadly, using this text at least (diff), and based on these sources?, does not preclude refinement. -Darouet (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean I was one of the editors who advocated inclusion, and I don't think my own arguments were weak, so obviously (if we're counting noses) I'm all for overturning this. But directly overturning an RFC is often difficult; whereas a second RFC some four months after the first is quite easy to obtain given that the first one clearly hasn't brought the matter to a conclusion and part of the rationale for its disputed closure was that there were questions that the closer felt had mostly not been considered. Regardless of the propriety of the closure, I don't think anyone can reasonably look at that RFC or the ensuing discussion and call the consensus backing it strong or conclusive, and I don't see how S Marshell could argue against a second RFC after stating in his rationale that the first one lacked sufficient discussion of key points. So rather than turning this into a personal dispute with S Marshall, it might be simpler to just call for a second RfC that unambiguously asks things like "should this be in the lead", "is the sourcing broadly sufficient", and "should we use Darouet's text as a basis" - this has been going on for two years already, after all; another month to obtain a bit more certainty in terms of a conclusion won't kill anyone. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn, obviously, after looking more closely. As Cambial said above, S Marshall did not, by my reading, make any attempt to argue in his closing statement that the made by people arguing for inclusion were stronger. The closest thing to it is an obvious WP:SUPERVOTE where he states The claim that the CIA was somehow involved or connected with Camarena's murder is of course an extraordinary one, and it requires in-text attribution to a specific source as well as an inline citation that directly supports the claim. The proposed addition is also long enough to raise concerns that it might give undue prominence to what may well be no more than a conspiracy theory. The kind of addition that could gain consensus would need to be succinct as well as specific in order to circumvent this concern. The majority of respondents stated (often with detailed, policy-based explanations of why) that they felt sourcing was sufficient, and S Marshall makes no effort to even acknowledge that, let alone explain how their arguments were flawed. Worse, the final sentence imposes requirements that were raised nowhere in the discussion - it is pure WP:SUPERVOTE. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Endorse Close: This looks like a good summary of the arguments made. It appears that question #2 was the contentious one. While I understand why some may have read that as "consensus against", I read it as "no consensus" with an understanding that it is an extraordinary claim and thus evidence in favor would have to be strong. Springee (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee: why do you think the arguments of 6 editors supporting inclusion of the text as written don't amount to a consensus, when only 3 editors, by comparison, oppose inclusion? Is a 2:1 margin not enough to determine consensus? Furthermore, from the perspective of consensus, don't you think it's significant that non-involved editors supported inclusion by a 5:1 margin? Especially with a number of them stating in their arguments that they have reviewed oppose votes and find them unpersuasive, since they attempt to impeach reliable sources through OR? -Darouet (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In cases where a simple vote count is appropriate, which this isn't, the convention is that below 65% in favour fails, above 75% passes, and 65%-75% is the closer's discretionary zone.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This aligns with my understanding. My feeling has been that, in pure numbers terms, 2/3rds is the consensus line (for or against) with less than 2/3rds being no-consensus. That line shifts or even is irrelvant if there is not a balance of arguments. Springee (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• This "convention", which you have apparently manufactured for the purpose of attempting to defend your actions in this close, appears nowhere in the guidance around RfCs or general discussion closure. Five questions remain, which you continue to make no attempt to answer:

1. If you have strong opinions about the subject, which you double down on above (Anyone who [doesn't share my preconceptions] has no business closing an RfC of any kind whatsoever), why did you seek to make a supervote by closing? You are totally unsuited to close this RfC.

2. Why do you misrepresent the !votes for inclusion of Darouet's text by imagining additional questions for the RfC? The question was unambiguous, and the text can and will be refined in mainspace.

3. Why do you seek to make prescriptions on future development by imagining other additional questions, which experienced editors will ignore?

4. Why do you totally ignore multiple uninvolved editors collective views on which are the controlling policies (WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:NOR), but pick up on certain views each expressed by a single editor?

5. When WP:Discard indicates that only irrelevant arguments should be discarded those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter, why do you give no reasons whatsoever for discarding the views of the majority of editors? Cambial foliage❧ 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I won't attempt to answer those questions at this stage. The only uninvolved sysops who've participated in this thread so far are Chetsford and Barkeep49, which means my close is mainly being reviewed by those who voted, and now the thread's sheer length defends it against being read. I will answer your questions if a single uninvolved sysop suggests overturning; otherwise I would prefer to encourage review of my decisions by keeping the thread as short as possible.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't reviewed the merits of the close so I have no idea there - I've only weighed in on what, in the abstract, I think makes a good close. However, and I admit to being a bit surprised I'm having to mention this to you of all people this, but any uninvolved editor (sysop or not) should have their voice considered when weighing consensus here about whether or not it was a good close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  The Arbcom election has taught me that meaningful engagement with your critics is optional.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  ANRFC is clear that Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale. So if, as you state, you see discussing what you claim is a "rationale" as optional, then you are not to try to make any RfC closures at all. Cambial foliage❧ 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I've discussed and justified it a lot, though, haven't I. I'm not required to answer your specific questions.—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, you haven't. You haven't justified it at all, and you haven't tried to. You've largely expended text pretending editors made different arguments to those in the discussion. The substantive issues are that you ignored policy and did as you please to make a supervote. That's what the points above reflect. You haven't addressed those; you claim you're unwilling to. Don't try to close RfCs. Cambial foliage❧ 15:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I'm required to explain my close, and I've done so. The rules don't say I have to engage with trap questions from vexatious questioners, nor am I required to stop closing RfCs on the request of aggrieved participants. You could seek consensus here to bar me from such closures, if you like.—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  You're required to justify your closing rationale, not merely explain [your] close. No explanation of your pseudo-close/supervote was required: you had a strong opinion and felt it would be more effective formatted as a close rather than another vote. But your rationale – which based on your current contributions to this discussion we are forced to assume is non-existent – is required. The fact you desperately resort to characterising questions as "traps" suggests an inability to seriously answer them. Cambial foliage❧ 17:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think S Marshall has been quite diligent in meeting their obligation for accountability as a closer of this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  User:Barkeep49 Based on what, precisely? There are five questions around policy errors above with no attempt at an answer. Even the most salient, the lack of any reason given for discarding the views of a majority of editors, has received no attempt at justification or explanation. The only attempt at justification of any aspect of the close is here, where they argue to Darouet: the only editor who supported your exact wording was you which is just flatly, obviously not true; and there was substantial and well-argued opposition to it. This "well-argued opposition" contains not one single reference to any source refuting the claims in the scholarly sources. Zero. And that fact is picked up on by multiple uninvolved editors.

  It is astonishing that I need to draw attention, to a supposedly experienced "closer" and to an Arbcom member, to what User:Darouet already stated during the discussion in no uncertain terms: The evaluation of historians and journalists is worth more than the speculations of editors here. Closing editor considers that unsourced speculation well-argued; arguments reiterating WP:NOR are discarded. No attempt at explaining this decision is made, and the editor claims that engagement with your critics is optional, yet you argue that WP:ADMINACCT is diligently observed. Are we reading different policies? Cambial foliage❧ 19:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  I have stated several times that I have not, nor do I plan to, evaluate this close challenge on the merits. Here are among the edits where I see S Marshall fulfilling their responsibility to be accountable [85] [86]. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse largely per Chetsford and ProcrastinatingReader. The crux of the debate was WP:RS (and possibly WP:FRINGE), and specifically whether the provided sourcing was of sufficient quality to support the claims in the proposed edit. Early comments were yes, but then the quality of the sourcing was challenged. Following the challenge, other editors opined that it should be included but with due weight given to the claim's refutation and weaknesses. Marshall's close accurately reflects this in its conclusion (paraphrased as) "include, but not this specific wording". As for the "don't work on it in article space": while it's not binding, common sense tells us that it's probably good advice. A lot of the "next steps" parts of the close could have been more clearly delineated from the "summary/binding" parts, but this isn't an exercise in copyediting so I'll refrain from rewriting it. In sum, there's consensus to include, but certainly no consensus to implement OP's proposed wording. Essentially, that's S Marshall's close, so I see no reason to overturn. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: by a 2:1 margin, editors rejected the concept of including WP:OR text devoted to refutation and weaknesses of newspaper articles and academic publications. In the RfC, just one blog post was offered as a source to support that refutation [87]; another was proposed earlier on the talk page [88]. Are those the sources you have in mind, or are there others we've missed here? I don't even know how to begin drafting "refutation" text not based in sources: so far academics have only weighed in to support the allegations. As it is, it seems that attributing the allegations to the academics in question seems the best option, and that's exactly what most editors supported. -Darouet (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTAVOTE I don't really care what the margin is, and bludgeoning this discussion with the same unpersuasive claims isn't going to win me over. As you'll see at WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources--in fact, qualifying or attributing suspicious or fringe claims is our policy. While you attempt to impugn it here, this source was written by Elaine Shannon, correspondent and investigative journalist for Newsweek and Time, who Harper Collins refers to as an expert in terrorism, crime, and espionage ([89]), and who has covered these topics for almost 50 years. Meanwhile, ProcrastinatingReader analyzes the provenance of your sources above, saying: One of the sources is a book published by an unknown author with only 1 piece published. One is a book review, another is a passing comment. The “RS” cited, that I checked, barely make any such [claim] and instead attribute it to one lawyer and a bunch of unnamed alleged witnesses and then pose a question. There is no evidence of any kind, rather pure speculation. This has all the hallmarks, and the distinct smell, of being a conspiracy theory. As Location says below, WP:RS states that context matters, not simply the author and the publisher; however, there seems to be an argument above to ignore an evaluation of this context claiming do so is "original research". So yeah, I'm not drinking the kool-aid on this one, and it's quite obvious that you're trying to play up the quality of your sources to try and get your preferred text into the article. That you "don't even know how to begin drafting refutation text" is not my problem. If you seriously can't do it, then don't--other editors will get on just fine without you. But misrepresenting sources on the admin noticeboard isn't going to win you fans. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not "analyzing" the provenance of the sources to simply lie about them, as is done above and which you repeat. Not an unknown author, that's a lie: Professor Emeritus of History at University of Wisconsin. Not 1 book review, that's a lie: two reviews of the book published in well-established peer-reviewed journals, both of which endorse the book's author's findings on this exact point. The claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text. Repeating another editor's lies about the sourcing won't make them any less flimsy or demonstrably inaccurate. What you say about misrepresenting sources on the admin noticeboard is entirely correct – advice you would be wise to follow. It's true that it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources. But in this instance, the attempts to question the reliability were made through original research, as was pointed out by multiple uninvolved editors. Furthermore, university presses and well-established journals are not "minor sources" simply because you deem them so on the basis of nothing in particular. Cambial foliage❧ 11:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

First, I suggest you be careful about throwing the word "lie" around, especially when making a point as silly as this one: Not an unknown author, that's a lie: Professor Emeritus of History at University of Wisconsin. Contrary to your assertion, a person can be both unknown and a professor emeritus. You don't suddenly become known because you retired, and there are plenty of unknown professors. If, however, you can name every emeritus professor from memory I would be quite impressed. Second, stop arguing against positions no one has taken in this discussion. For example, you bring up that The claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text. Well yeah, obviously. No one is claiming Darouet's text was made up as a hoax. The point I understand PR to be making, and which I agree with, is that you both are being hyperbolic about the quality of sourcing. Third, while you admit that It's true that it's not original research to qualify or question the reliability of minor sources, you then immediately start trying to back track and explain why we should make an exception for you this time. It seems that your problem is that in this instance, the attempts to question the reliability were made through original research. Let's compare that with what WP:NOR actually says: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources". So either you don't understand the original research policy or you are willfully misrepresenting it; I'll assume you just didn't read that part of the policy.

Finally, and to get to the heart of your comment, you are correct to say university presses and well-established journals are not "minor sources" but only because they aren't sources at all. They are publishers of sources. While the publisher is helpful in evaluating the reliability of sources, you cannot simply point to the publisher and claim a source is beyond question. To wit, you are making claims about the quality of your sources that show you either do not know about academic publishing or are misrepresenting the sources (and again, I'll assume you just don't know). You say two reviews of the book published in well-established peer-reviewed journals which sounds impressive if you don't know anything about book reviews. In fact, book reviews are not peer reviewed, so including that descriptor is misleading---sure the journal articles are peer reviewed but the things you want to cite are plainly not peer reviewed. As you'll see in the Chronicle of Higher Education article I just linked you to, book reviews are not held in particularly high regard by academics, and while they are certainly reliable sources, waving them around like a talisman to ward of criticism just isn't going to get you far with people who understand the academic publishing process. They are in fact minor, and as PR rightly points out, they do little more than repeat the book's hypothesis without significant evaluation. And certainly neither book review claims that the CIA assassination hypothesis is an unassailable fact. To quote Freije (2016) "The evidence for US involvement is compelling but, as Bartley and Bartley acknowledge, circumstantial". That evaluation doesn't get you as far as you seem to think it does, and it's certainly not an "endorsement" in any meaningful sense of the word. Circumstantial evidence is that which requires inference to come to a particular conclusion, and so scholars in the field---even the authors of the book themselves---note that the claims are not supported by any direct evidence or strong enough to preclude reasonable doubt. And that's what we see: reasonable doubt from not only our editors but from experts in the field like Elaine Shannon. As participants in the discussion argue and as S Marshall rightly concludes in his close, in this situation WP:DUE forbids us from offering only one side of this debate as if it is fact. As others have told you, this isn't the place to reargue the RfC, and so I'm not going to spend more time offering source analysis because if I cared about this topic I would have commented in the RfC. To head off further assumptions: I have read the discussion, I have skimmed the sources (I even have online access to the book through my university), and I have read Wikipedia's policies. Given all that, I maintain that S Marshall's close reaches the correct conclusion that the allegations of CIA assassination should be included alongside skepticism of that claim given both the discussion and project-wide consensus at WP:DUE. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much as you say, Wug; exaggerated sourcing. Some more examples: this book review mentions the CIA once. It is being used to verify: Some journalists and historians have concluded that the killings of Buendía and Camarena were linked, since both discovered that the US Central Intelligence Agency was using Mexican and Central American drug traffickers to import "cocaine into the U.S. and [facilitate] the movement of arms to the contras." yet the source does not appear to do so. Further, as with this book review by the same author, it relies upon the Wisconsin professor's book (the first listed source). So 2 of the listed sources are book reviews of the first listed source, both reviews written by the same person. They're being used to fluff up the importance of the first, not as independent sourcing.

As for CF, if you really believe your sourcing is so convincing what you had to do was quite simple: rather than dump a bunch of links to sources, use {{tq}} and quote from each source the text which supports what you're trying to say with it. The people who are on the side of the sources don't need to spend paragraphs explaining their opinion; all they need to do is cite the source, provide a quote, and let the source speak for itself. That generally helps, although probably not in this case since the sources themselves are dubious. The entire argument rests upon a source by Bartley, pretty much. As some opposers in the RfC said, it would best be used with attribution. In my experience, almost every time people WP:CITEBOMB on a controversial point without specific quotes, or without links that easily verify the text, it's very suspicious and makes me even more inclined to check each source. Whenever I close an RfC I am very skeptical of low quality/non-evidence-based votes, and give far more weight to votes which analyse the sourcing in either direction. If only those refuting the sourcing choose to do so, as TheTimesAreAChanging did, then so be it; WP:NOTAVOTE applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per your comment, I've quoted from the sources below. I have seen editors use "citebombing" to conceal weak sources, but if you actually take the time to read the sources, you'll notice that the text proposed in the RfC does little more than quote them, with attribution, and with a denial by the CIA. Adding a further denial by a journalist writing in her own blog doesn't change any of this. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That was a huge amount of text expended Wug to buttress your argument against a point which literally no-one here or anywhere was arguing for: offering only one side of this debate as if it is fact. The text which was the subject of the RfC certainly does not do so. I'll assume you just failed to understand this when you read the discussion, but can't help but wonder if a sense of injury lead you to forget your own admonishment to stop arguing against positions no one has taken in this discussion.

With regard to there are plenty of unknown professors; I made the assumption, which I maintain is a fair one, that when ProReader and you used the word "unknown" in the context of this discussion, and in the phrase unknown author with only 1 piece published, it was meant to mean "unknown in the field" or "unknown academically", rather than "not famous". In the field, the author has been published in multiple journals from the 1970s to today (e.g. [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]) and has authored or co-authored a number of monographs published by other university presses (e.g. [96] [97] [98]) as well as editing conference volumes, so in that sense is not "unknown". He is however, certainly not famous, so you are correct on that point: that is – in the sense of the word that is totally irrelevant to the point at hand.

This sentence you then immediately start trying to back track and explain why we should make an exception for you this time is simply manufactured out of whole cloth. There was no "back track". You made a general point about questioning or qualifying sources. It's not applicable here. No, WP:NOR is not applicable to talk pages. But none of the unsourced assertions in the extensive discussion, which amount to "I don't trust X" or "Y is a liar", can be added to the text in mainspace as a counterweight to Darouet's text. As the closing editor points out, those discussions were about the specific wording. So discussing claims that cannot appear in mainspace at exhaustive length is not questioning or qualifying sources or "well-argued opposition", but rather speculation, on about the same level as saying "Russell and Sylvia Bartley are GRU agents infiltrating academic publishing" and then expecting to be taken seriously. I suggested to the editors making these claims more than once during the discussion that they provide a relevant source. None did so.

"Well-established peer-reviewed" was included to distinguish the publications from e.g. the current sorry state of journal publishing. "Highly reputable and established" would have been more concise and can be inserted in its place. While it's true that book reviews are not peer-reviewed, you yourself point out that they are held to a certain standard, and are reliable sources. Your source analysis offers the notion that we should be too sceptical of these sources – written by professional historians – to include the claims with attribution as in Darouet's text, but nevertheless pay close attention to a blog post by a journalist (unmentioned in the RfC and first brought up here). This ventures too far into the ridiculous to merit extensive counterargument. Suffice to say that "The evidence for US involvement is compelling but, as Bartley and Bartley acknowledge, circumstantial", is certainly an endorsement insofar as the word "compelling" means either "Not able to be refuted; inspiring conviction" or "convincing".

What you say about circumstantial evidence was already raised during the discussion, by me. This you would surely have noted, rather than repeating it and wikilinking it ("waving it around like a talisman") as though it was a damning refutation (it isn't), if you had read and understood the discussion to the degree which you claim.

No "others" have told me this is not the place to reargue the RfC. That was something I pointed out in response to the comment that you quoted at length...in attempting to reargue the RfC. You say you have skimmed the sources and read the discussion. I don't doubt it, but I do question whether you have understood the relevant detail in a meaningful way.

As to stop arguing against positions no one has taken in this discussion...No one is claiming Darouet's text was made up, I'll simply leave what I wrote: The claim made in the sources is exactly that which Darouet specifies in his proposed text and the text you quoted: The “RS” cited, that I checked, barely make any such [claim], and will make no further comment, out of politeness. Cambial foliage❧ 10:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing, I did smile to see you criticize another editor with "That was a huge amount of text expended". I can only admire your unselfconsciousness.—S Marshall T/C 11:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad to give you what must be a rare laugh S Marshall, even if its cause is misplaced. The criticism was for argument against a point which literally no-one here or anywhere was arguing for; the quantity of text merely a passing comment. A subtle if crucial error, though given your recent difficulty grasping more basic elements of English meaning, an entirely understandable one. Cambial foliage❧ 12:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I do apologize for my failure to understand basic written English. I hope that through diligent study, I can one day come to understand the immense subtlety of your arguments.—S Marshall T/C 19:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I have been indirectly referenced here by other participants in the RfC. The idea that that I am an "involved editor" who has "already spent years arguing against various versions of the text in question" is overstated in that I had only one minor edit to the article in 2015 prior to responding to a discussion regarding the reliability of a book that Darouet suggested shortly before the RfC. The material from that book that Darouet wants to insert into the article relies upon a number of dubious sources to makes a WP:REDFLAG claim that most recently has been embraced by QAnon supporters; it propagates the conspiracy theory that the CIA was involved in the 1985 murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena to cover-up a drug smuggling operation to fund the Nicaraguan Contras. For what it's worth, various federal investigations long ago rejected the CIA drug smuggling claims, the largest homicide investigation ever conducted by the DEA identified Mexican drug traffickers as Camarena's murderers, and the head of the DEA rejected the involvement of the CIA in Camarena's murder as a "fable" that "has no basis in fact". WP:RS states that context matters, not simply the author and the publisher; however, there seems to be an argument above to ignore an evaluation of this context claiming do so is "original research".

Darouet's RfC was poorly phrased without any recommendation for specific text to be included. Per WP:BRD, S Marshall enjoined us to draft the additions and discuss them, but no one has even tried this. - Location (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC proposed specific text [99]. As to the QAnon link - doesn't this claim come from a single blog post [100], referencing a comment the author found on facebook? Historians and journalists have been covering the allegations of CIA involvement in Camarena's death for many years before QAnon even existed. Linking this to QAnon is deeply confused at best, and dishonest at worst. -Darouet (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "specific text", only five of the 12 sources you listed in the RfC were actually in the linked material, so I thought you had plans to use them. My apologies for misunderstanding your position on using them.

What is dishonest is the continuous puffery of conspiracy sources as "academic historians" or "professional historians" and diminishing those who have actually expertise as merely blog writers. Jeff Stein's SpyTalk column started in Congressional Quarterly in 2005, then made its way to Newsweek and The Washington Post before it was revived in its current incarnation as an online newsletter. The editors and contributors are a combination of veteran journalists, award-winning writers, and foreign policy wonks with loads of expertise. As noted in her Wikipedia article, Elaine Shannon has nearly 50 years of expertise related investigating and writing about organized crime, drug trafficking, etc. and she is still an active journalist. On the other hand, no one recognizes RH Bartley (who has published works on a variety of topics) or SE Bartley (currently a volunteer archivist for the Fort Bragg-Mendocino Coast Historical Society) as experts in this particular area.

Now you may have missed the gist of that part of my post, but it is a fact that far-right supporters, like QAnon, are increasingly embracing conspiracy theories (e.g. chemtrails, water fluoridation, anti-vax, HAARP, deep state, JFK assassination, Operation Mockingbird, 9/11) that have historically been supported by those on the far-left. I don't blame you for wanting to distance yourself or the "professional historians" from them. -Location (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn - Levivich stated the reason succinctly, and I doubt anything I said would improve upon it. The arguments in the iVotes are pretty clear. Atsme 💬 📧 12:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

What is required to close an RfC in favor of a minority?

@S Marshall: your reasoning behind closing in support of "three editors" instead of "half a dozen" relies on what you characterize as later, well-reasoned RfC comments by a minority in the discussion. This is not an accurate reflection of the RfC outcome or talk page history: two of the three editors you side with in the RfC had already spent years [101][102][103] arguing against various versions of the text in question [104], which is what necessitated the RfC [105] in the first place. Non-involved editors supported inclusion of the text by a 5:1 margin (five [106][107][108][109][110] vs 1 [111]), and pointed out that the two editors objecting to the text based their arguments upon WP:OR objections to the reliability of all available academic sources.

1. Allegations of CIA involvement in Camarena's death were added to the article in 2013, when a number of former colleagues and agents began speaking to the press on the issue [112].
2. Those allegations remained in the article until exactly two years ago, when they were removed [113].
3. At that time I disputed the removal and looked into academic writing on the topic, where I found that multiple historians and regional specialists endorsed the allegations as likely true [114]. I re-wrote the content to fit with what historians have to say on the matter.
4. After nearly two years of talk page argument over whether ordinarily reliable sources can be reliable in this case [115] and having to deal with endless IP proxying or sockpuppetry [116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125], I launched an RfC to just resolve the issue once and for all.
5. Uninvolved editors supported including the well-referenced text by a 5:1 margin.
6. S Marshall, closing the RfC, sides entirely with two involved editors who commented at the end of the RfC, and who had opposed the addition of the content for years prior to the RfC being held.

Contrary to Marshall's statement, those uninvolved editors who supported inclusion gave very strong arguments for keeping the disputed text. For example see this excellent comment [126], pointing out that no academic sources can be found disputing the allegations:

Include Certainly this information sourced to the Bartley/Bartley book and some of the commentaries in journals should be included in the body and in the lead. Particularly the favourable review by Vanessa Freije, which specifically endorses the evidence on Camarena and interpretation presented by the Bartleys, that was published in The Hispanic American Historical Review. Alongside the Journal of Latin American Studies and the LAP it is the preeminent English-language journal in the field, and cannot simply be disregarded. It is important that the information is presented, as the Bartleys do, as circumstantial but nevertheless compelling. To those others arguing at great (!!) length against inclusion: if you wish to dispute the articles supporting the Bartleys' findings you are welcome to submit an article for publication to either of the aforementioned journals or any of several other excellent scholarly publications. But WP Talk pages are not the place for your research and rambling cant on a subject in which you evidently have little expertise. See here. My only caveat would be that Freije's support for Bartley should also be cited.

Of course, I have no undying commitment to the text specifically as written. But after two years of arguing about it and receiving clear RfC support, it's clear that the two involved editors that S Marshall supported in closing the RfC are simply not going to accept adding this information to the article. I wish that S Marshall had understood the talk page history before overturning the RfC outcome, or had carefully read the RfC comments and consulted the works of professional historians and regional specialists who remain, after two years of disagreement, totally absent from Kiki Camarena. -Darouet (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Darouet, perhaps you can enlighten me: why did you disregard the close for some months, during which time you were actively editing, and then suddenly start posting colossal screeds about it on AN during the holiday period?—S Marshall T/C 21:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I was teaching during the semester, and didn’t want to go to AN until the semester ended. -Darouet (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thank you for saying that it's clear that the two involved editors that S Marshall supported in closing the RfC are simply not going to accept adding this information to the article. I now understand that this is your actual problem with the close, isn't it? You don't want to have to negotiate with them because you don't expect them to compromise?—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

The RfC was held after over a year of negotiations led to no resolution. Thank goodness at least that RfC editor comments so overwhelmingly supported available scholarship. I suggest that you consult that - this is, after all, an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to suggest that an editor must convince everyone (I note that you also made this error in your closure, stating The debate includes several participants who adopt complex and nuanced positions, and offer detailed and persuasive arguments in favour of them, but even after all these words, editors don't seem to be changing their minds in any very substantive way.) Consensus is a matter of discussion and negotiation, but some disputes are ultimately intractable and require outside opinions - that is part of the purpose of an RfC. --Aquillion (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reading the RfC I gather that multiple editors supported inclusion on the basis of strong sourcing, then one comment came in refuting the sourcing as weak (which, honestly, reviewing the sourcing this seems accurate), and finally 2 comments implying they're open to mentioning it, but that it should be balanced with refutations of these claims. That seems to be the overall consensus: supporting inclusion of the point itself, but not necessarily the exact text proposed, and it should be balanced with sources refuting this CIA theory.

Comparing this to SM's close: I agree with Q/A #1 and #2, I think #3 was unclear / no discernible consensus. I'm not sure about QA #4 (cannot work on it in the live article), but this is a relatively minor point. I agree with the substance of the close; endorse close. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• On the question of what is required to close an RfC in favor of a minority, guidance suggests that, at a bare minimum, the rationale for discarding some arguments should be elaborated. The closing editor in this case did not even make an attempt to do so. Cambial foliage❧ 00:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Question: What do you think about the S Marshell's opinion that The kind of addition that could gain consensus would need to be succinct as well as specific in order to circumvent this concern? That is the part of the closure that leaped out to me most clearly as a WP:SUPERVOTE - it seems to set specific, unambiguous requirements that S Marshell would need to see in order to accept any consensus, but those requirements don't seem to be ones that anyone else in the discussion even brought up. To me, that's the most clear-cut hallmark of a supervote - a closer who comes in, looks over the dispute, and says "oh, I see what the conclusion to this should look like!" rather than assessing the actual opinions and arguments being made. Likewise, I do not actually see any new arguments being made in the final two !votes - after all, they were people who had participated significantly before; all their concerns about sourcing had been previously expressed and did not seem to convince anyone outside the closer. There are some situations where sourcing concerns could be so stark that it justifies disregarding people who say it's met, but again, S Marshell does not even attempt to make that argument. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• So, where the purpose of a content RfC is to resolve an intractable content dispute, the closer ought to try to show the parties how they can actually resolve it. The closer role is partly that of referee. At best, you make a clear finding for one side or the other, but where as closer you don't feel you can do that, then at second best you try to show the parties a way forward that gets to an edit that's acceptable to all sides without a second RfC. As a neutral party who's read the debate in detail, it's fairly often my practice to offer pointers about what kind of edit I feel could gain consensus. I mean, sure, I could have just gone "No consensus", hatted the discussion and moved on, but that's neither a decision nor a compromise and it just leaves everyone going in circles. I've been doing it for many years, it's SOP for me.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree with that view of the closer's role. The closer should summarize the discussion, not act as an arbiter of the dispute. Levivich ^harass/_hound 03:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with that. But I also agree with the idea that a closer, especially in a case of no consensus, can offer possible paths forward. Not an RfC but I did a version of this today. The key for this to work, I think, is that needs to suggest rather than proscribe and also be specific enough to be valuable but general enough that you're not being prescriptive. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  There's a pattern on Wikipedia where content disputes get deadlocked into a permanent "no consensus" state, and this is where tempers fray, people start feeling the other side is stalling or filibustering, and content disputes escalate into conduct disputes. The right RfC close can get past that. I didn't phrase that part of my close perfectly, but I'm confident that the principle of the "roadmap to consensus" approach is right.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  Are you saying you believe that the actual outcome of that RFC was no consensus? You seem to have indicated it above, as well (I mean, sure, I could have just gone "No consensus", hatted the discussion and moved on, but that's neither a decision nor a compromise and it just leaves everyone going in circles. Because that was not, by my reading, how you closed it. A closer's role, first and foremost, is to assess consensus; if you (as I read your statements) you're confessing that you believed there was no consensus in the discussion, and you imposed a consensus regardless in order to guide people towards a specific outcome, then you're admitting that you closed it improperly. It is also completely improper for a closer to impose a compromise - either there is a consensus, in which case you determine the consensus; or there is not, in which case you close as no-consensus. If you saw no consensus and wanted to workshop a compromise you should have joined the discussion as a participant in the RFC, rather than trying to close it with a WP:SUPERVOTE towards your preferred consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  No, I was talking Levivich and Barkeep49 about RfCs in general. On this particular RfC, I don't currently have anything to add. I will, in due course, catch up with the sheer quantity of words that you and Darouet are posting, and may have something to add when I've read it all.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• But SM didn't close as no-consensus. He specifically found a consensus against a specific wording. If he did so while believing there was no consensus, then that was a misclose and needs to be overturned. If he wanted to join the discussion, he could have done so; if he felt he was qualified to mediate, he could have offered to do so. But attempting to impose consensus from above by declaring certain things as a consensus when they are not is abusing the role of closer. It certainly does nothing to resolve the discussion - I know that as someone who only casually participated in the discussion at the time, this absurd outcome has brought me into the discussion with a firm determination to reject SM's misclose or any proposed outcomes that rely on it, since it plainly does not represent any sort of consensus among editors (something SM seems to concede when he acknowledges that he should have at best closed it as a simple no-consensus.) Consensus-building needs to rely on actual discussions an debate; I can understand SM's frustration on seeing an intractable dispute, and his desire to cut through that by imposing an outcome from above (especially by ruling out outcomes that he personally finds unacceptable.) But a closer trying to impose an outcome only introduces additional toxicity and makes the process more difficult. No one who weighed in as an "include" in a discussion like that is likely to accept SM's close as accurate. That means that both sides of the dispute have even less incentive to concede or discuss - both sides are going to believe they have a consensus backing them, after all, and that a later RFC will back them up. Basically, resolving a dispute requires an accurate assessment of where things currently stand - when a closer fails to provide that, discussions are going to break down. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to your question, in my experience SM's closes sometimes mix determinations of consensus with his personal advice on what could achieve consensus. Both things have place in a close, but personal suggestions are not consensus. It's hard to tell, reading that, whether he means "it must be succinct to be added to the article" (which I think is what you've read it as, and that would be a supervote) and "I suggest parties try drafting a more succinct addition, which may address the concerns here, and testing that in a future discussion" (which is totally acceptable). I think he meant the latter, but it might've helped to clearly say that this was just advice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Exaggerated sourcing"

Wugapodes has stated that arguments in support of the proposed text rely upon "exaggerated sourcing," and ProcrastinatingReader has said a strong argument should "quote from each source." I did not quote from the sources here because they are quoted from abundantly at Talk:Kiki Camarena, and because the text considered in the RfC is little more than quotes from sources, with careful attribution. The RfC text consists of two full sentences introducing the allegation, a summarizing quote from professor (and department head of social sciences at the University College Utrecht) Wil Pansters, a sentence introducing the Bartley book followed by a quote from the Bartleys, and lastly one sentence each devoted to lead DEA investigator Berrellez, a re-opened investigation by the justice department, and a denial by the CIA.

The proposed text that non-involved RfC respondents overwhelmingly endorsed (five [127][128][129][130][131] vs 1 [132]) does exactly what everyone here says is necessary: 1) actually quotes from reliable sources, 2) attributes claims, and 3) includes a denial from the CIA.

Now Wugapodes is stating that we should take this blog-post rebuttal [133] by journalist Elaine Shannon more seriously. We can certainly do that (note that Shannon's post was written after the RfC was launched), but other sources have emerged since this dispute began as well — including a four-part documentary released by Amazon, where numerous former DEA agents and Mexican police officers come forward to support the allegations — so new sources don't fundamentally change the issue.

Per ProcrastinatingReader's request, here's what the authors in question have written:

• Pansters, Wil G. "Drug trafficking, the informal order, and caciques. Reflections on the crime-governance nexus in Mexico." Global Crime 19.3-4 (2018): 315-338 [134] (Peer-reviewed journal article):

The Camarena affair constituted a turning point in the recent history of state-crime governance in Mexico, as it brought to light the complicity between drug traffickers and the Dirección Federal de Seguridad (DFS), which enjoyed the support of or worked on behalf of the CIA. Fierce reactions from the US, eventually led to the dismantling of the DFS.

• Bartley, Russell H., and Sylvia Erickson Bartley. Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía. University of Wisconsin Press, 2015 [135]:

The preponderance of evidence now available in the public record, confirmed and further nuanced by our own cited sources and most especially by Lawrence Victor Harrison, persuades us beyond a reasonable doubt that Manuel Buendía was slain on behalf of the United States because of what he had learned about U.S.-Mexico collusion with narcotics traffickers, international arms dealers, and other governments in support of Reagan administration efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. The evidence we have developed also leads us to conclude that DEA S/A Enrique Camarena Salazar was abducted, interrogated, and killed for the same reason and that the two cases are therefore related. The import of this latter conclusion is that, contrary to the hero status accorded Camarena as an ostensible casualty of the "war on drugs," he was sacrificed by his own government in order to prevent exposure of a covert operation against the legitimate authorities of another country.

• Pansters, Wil G. "Spies, Assassins, and Statesmen in Mexico’s Cold War." (2017): 143-156 [136] (Book review in the European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies):

In a painstaking investigative process, the authors along with other journalists in Mexico and the U.S. became convinced that the Buendía and Camarena killings were linked, and much of the book is about the Bartleys trying to put the different pieces together. The most important element is that the interests behind both killings go beyond criminal interests and reach into the political domains on both sides of the border. In the mid-1980s, Mexico’s one party regime confronted serious challenges, while the Reagan administration was deeply involved in a Cold War battle against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. Buendía and DEA agent Camarena had each separately discovered that the CIA was running a dark network, which involved Mexican and Central American drug traffickers that imported cocaine into the U.S. and facilitated the movement of arms to the contras. Nicaraguan contras were trained at a Mexican ranch owned by one of the country’s most notorious capos. CIA pilots flew many of the planes. The DFS functioned as the go-between, and hence involved the Ministry of the Interior. The Mexican army provided the necessary protection, and got a bite of the pie. Since the overriding concern of the CIA was the anti-Sandinista project, it trumped the DEA’s task of combating drug trafficking, and covertly incorporated (or pressured) parts of the Mexican state into subservience. Buendía had found out about the CIA-contra-drugs-DFS connection, which seriously questioned Mexican sovereignty, while Camarena learned that the CIA had infiltrated the DEA and sabotaged its work so as to interfere with the clandestine contra-DFS-traffickers network... ...a few years before [The Bartley's book] was finally published the fundamental arguments of the book had become widely known. In October 2013, former DEA agents involved in the Camarena investigation came out publicly in interviews with U.S. and Mexican media, in which they laid out CIA involvement in the case, its connections to drug trafficking, the conflicts in Central America, and the Buendía murder. The influential Mexican magazine Proceso led with the story for weeks. A retired senior Mexican intelligence official came out to corroborate the facts. Mexican journalist Esquivel (2014), criticized by the Bartleys, published a small book about it. So the core argument of Eclipse of the Assassins was already available to a wide audience when the book was finally published in 2015.

• Freije, Vanessa. "Eclipse of the Assassins: The CIA, Imperial Politics, and the Slaying of Mexican Journalist Manuel Buendía." (2016): 766-768 [137] (Book review in the Hispanic American Historical Review):

According to the authors, Buendía learned that the Mexican government was aiding the CIA in its proxy war against Nicaragua’s leftist government. Specifically, the CIA used a Veracruz airfield to transport weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras, and at the same time the agency trained Contras on the ranch of Guadalajara Cartel kingpin Rafael Caro Quintero. Bartley and Bartley find confirmation for these claims in US court case files, which include statements by ex-CIA and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents asserting that such operations involved the knowing collaboration of Mexican politicians, the DFS, drug traffickers, and the CIA, among others. Using these testimonies, which come from the trial for the 1985 murder of undercover DEA agent Enrique Camarena, the authors hypothesize that the United States played a role in the Buendía and Camarena murders to prevent the so-called “Veracruz link” from surfacing (p. 195). The evidence for US involvement is compelling but, as Bartley and Bartley acknowledge, circumstantial (p. 394).

As noted by professor Pansters, this has also received a lot of coverage in the mainstream press (e.g. Tucson Sentinel, Processo, LA Weekly, El Pais, Fox News, Fox News again, and USA Today). RfC respondents were correct to argue that the proposed text [138] was reliably sourced, and far from "hyperbolic," the proposed text should really be considered a minimum coverage for an important topic. -Darouet (talk) 15:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• I stopped at the first paragraph. When I said that, I meant in the RfC itself (and I also said That generally helps, although probably not in this case since the sources themselves are dubious). Content discussions don’t really happen on the AN. In hindsight this section has gone off the rails; some attention was warranted to the arguments relating to sourcing which are relevant to the extent that the sourcing is problematic, but mostly limited to those explicitly stated in the RfC. The point I stated here was made in the RfC, and Wug elaborated on the same. Rebuttals should’ve been made in the RfC to the editors who made such points, not @ AN. The point here is that the close seems correct, and you’re always free to take the closer’s advice to draft a new RfC, ideally working with editors on the talk to construct a good proposal. You can perhaps put the above content into said new RfC, and it might convince editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: you've missed the point - the reason there's so much drama here is because this text was the subject of the RfC, and editors who endorsed the content (by a substantial majority) explicitly stated that they did so on the basis of the quotes above. Why launch a second RfC on the exact same material that most editors already agree is well supported by specific text in sources? -Darouet (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Because the text as written did not have consensus for inclusion. Mostly because it appears editors were not convinced by the sourcing and believed the text as written was UNDUE. I notice that above you have not addressed multiple of Wug’s lengthy points, such as the one on book reviews for example, which is one example of why this stuff might’ve been unconvincing. Ultimately, not all votes are equal and this isn’t a democracy. An editor who looks, sees 10 links and writes “Include, reliable sourcing” doesn’t get an equal number of ballots as an editor who takes the time to check each source and tear it apart. In the latter half of the RfC editors did so, and the tide of the RfC changed course. This is what the closer noted, and it seems there’s no consensus at AN to overturn the close.

I don’t understand why you’re seeking a close review when it seems you don’t agree with the conclusion. Ultimately, the walls of text are not going to produce good outcomes. Now, more uninvolved editors are going to be less likely to take time out of their own editing to read all of the above and get involved in a dispute they (generally) couldn’t care less about as far as content goes, hence you want to make it not so difficult for editors to weigh in. So I really think you’re kinda inadvertently shoot in yourself in the foot here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse close. Stop wasting time and pixels here and start discussing on the talk page what specific wording should go in the article: the RfC supported a section on alleged CIA involvement. Fences&Windows 01:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Close

Four editors have stated that the close should be overturned, while six have endorsed it. At a minimum, this shows there's no consensus here for overturning S Marshall's RfC close. I agree that enough space and time has been taken to argue these points, and this discussion should be closed. @Chetsford, ProcrastinatingReader, Springee, Wugapodes, Location, Fences and windows, Levivich, Cambial Yellowing, Aquillion, and Atsme: while S Marshall's close states there's consensus to include this material, it also states that there's no consensus to include the text I had drafted for consideration by the RfC. If any of you would like to draft text based on the sources available, please feel free to do so. -Darouet (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Like I said at the start, now that it's been four (closer to five) months, I would just go for another RFC - that's sufficient time, especially when the previous RFC's closure was contentious, and especially given that one of the reasons the closer gave for disregarding some of the opinions expressed was because he felt there were points made later on that weren't sufficiently addressed. Another RFC can go over each of the points raised in the previous RFC individually to address that issue. I would prefer to obtain clarity like that and know where we stand now (rather than 4-5 months ago) before we start discussing specific wordings. --Aquillion (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

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