Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335

Ban clarification

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 was chatting with Oshwah and I would like some extra clarification on the ban. I didn't realise my ban covered every aspect of transport, and I got completely lost so I just wanted to ask just in case --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

For context, EurovisionNim is "banned from all edits and pages related to automobiles, broadly construed, subject to the usual exceptions." In my chat discussion with EurovisionNim on IRC, I told him that "automobiles" include boats, airplanes, trains, cars, trucks, buses, helicopters, motorcycles, rocket ships, ...anything that moves by an energy source (fuel, solar, etc). He asked if he could come here and challenge that definition, and I told him that he could. He might also want to appeal his ban, but I'll leave that decision to EurovisionNim and whether he chooses to appeal or not to. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I am looking for more clarification and advice. Because the ban was enacted on 19th January 2019 and I took a two year break until July 3 2021, so I have only recently come back and getting my head around things :) and didn't make any edits on the last two years, but I just want to apologise and start all over again. I am a good faith user who wants to prove to myself. Maybe a probation/or unban condition could work. I am no longer the person I was back in 2018 and I've promised to behave and no longer edit-war anymore (last one I apologised and stopped ever since). I apologised to everyone and want to move on --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am confused. I went back and looked at the discussion at ANI that led to the imposition of the ban, but how did a ban related to automobile articles get broadened to a ban that included almost every other form of energized transportation? I read what Oshwah said about IRC, but I don't understand what gave Oshwah or any other admin the authority to broaden the ban without additional community input? But I'm hardly an expert on topic bans; the only sanction more problematic than a topic ban is an interaction ban. So maybe I'm missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Bbb23 - Okay, I apologize - I went too far with the examples here. I hardly think that a rocket ship is an automobile, obviously. :-) I gave EurovisionNim the definition of "automobiles" to include boats, planes, trains, and other transportation. The "broadly construed" part is what had me including other methods of transportation into the definition of "automobiles". I'm just trying to make sure that EurovisionNim doesn't cross the line and find himself in hot water. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If this user is to be banned from all forms of vehicles then automobile is the wrong word to have used in describing the ban. This word applies to road vehicles. Was this a discretionary sanction ban or a community decision? Where did this choice of wording come from? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the link User:Bbb23. That discussion is about automobiles, which are 4 wheeled land vehicles. Even broadly construed I would only go so far as motorcycles and busses being included. By no stretch are boats, aircraft, and rocket ships what the community decided on. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC - I would say that "four-wheeled land vehicles" is a fair definition to put for "automobiles". Thank you for the response. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I thought the ban only related to cars. If that was so, then of course being banned from taxis, police cars, ambulances and vans would make sense, but not buses, trains, aircraft as they are different objects altogether. I found the wording very poor. The ban was a community one HighInBC. Its just didn't make sense and threw a tantrum and left and after two years, I wanted to just go back to editing constructively, but the ban never thought would expand to other road vehicles. However, my behaviour two years ago was very bad, but it was due to my uncontrollable addiction to the computer, but I sought psychological help and now have become a changed individual and no longer have daily fights and conflicts and now edit constructively. Hence I just. want some advice, that's all. It just sounds overkill to me and in hindsight some editors seem to be getting away with it and I never attempted to evade my ban/edit car articles, never ever during the period of my ban. This is somewhat a difficult piece to digest. How come another users gets an image restriction, yet me who gets banned from everything, where I haven't caused any problems outside the user in question and with the other articles, I don't know whats going on with Wikipedia!!--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Duration of topic ban

The original proposal was "I also propose a topic ban for Nim on automobile related article for a short period". A couple members of community supported and indefinite topic ban, but about the same number support shorter durations ranging from 1 month to 6 months. It was closed by @GoldenRing: as an indefinite topic ban.

I am wondering if we can call this time served with the understanding that further disruption in this area can result in the reintroduction of the topic ban. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with that. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23 brings up good points. I'm standing neutral for now. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If the community wants to lift the ban, that is their perogative, but to do so because of "time served" is disingenuous. As Nim says, he stopped editing right after the ban was enacted and made zero edits until this month. Normally, a banned editor demonstrates reform by (1) not violating the ban and (2) continuing to edit productively in areas unrelated to the ban. One doesn't demonstrate reform by leaving the project. Moreover, as I understand it, he's already gotten into some trouble for disruptive editing, even though he keeps apologizing. I would not endorse lifting the ban at this time. If the consensus is to leave the ban in place, I think it should be clarified as to precisely what is included by "automobiles, broadly construed". I would not favor including busses or motorcycles just because they are land vehicles. If we did, that would have to include medium-sized trucks and semi trucks and I'm not sure what all else. From what I saw, without reading everything in detail, we're talking about non-commercial vehicles used by ordinary people. "Broadly construed", which is thrown into every topic ban that I've ever seen, might include other passenger vehicles like SUVs, small consumer trucks, vans, things like that, and maybe even motorcycles, although I don't think that was an issue in the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Bbb23. I never want the ban itself to be lifted necessarily. All I wanted was a clarification. In essence, automobiles could include SUVs, and daily transport like people. I was not disruptive in other sections, it was only selfie was the one that launched me into an edit war which I was told off and apologised. However, considering the nuances, the ban was very very badly worded, almost to the point I couldn't understand and I'm a uni student. To be frank, Davey requested I take a break for two years, which I did, but if I'm editing planes, trucks, buses then yeah why is that I can't edit these being the problem. I don't need the ban lifted at this stage, and I know its very unlikely to happen as I haven't satisfied the criteria yet, due to my 'cloud' absence for two years which demonstrated my immaturity, but since its 2021, I just want to edit as a mature person. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@EurovisionNim: Do not revert any part of this discussion under any circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

But i do not want my topic ban lifted. I can't just randomly say I have edited, when in fact I haven't. I hate lying, I am a good human. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came here to make a proposal regarding the ban but was derailed by Nim removing this entire subsection, apparently because he doesn't want the ban lifted. This really poor judgment on his part is disturbing and makes it harder to discuss his ban. Perhaps, the encyclopedia was better off when wasn't editing. It strikes me that whatever progress he has made during his long break is insufficient for him to edit maturely and collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I asked for clarification. Do realise, don't you that I was a problem editor way back in the automobile project, and it is very unlikely for the ban to be lifted as per the WP:STANDARD OFFER. I mean, if i just 'vanish' and then come back for no good reason, is there really an expectation for the ban to be lifted? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If you were going for a Cleanstart then no that wouldn't get you out of the restriction. Clean start only applies for accounts that don't have restrictions. Somebody who vanished and then returned with a new account editing in the area that the old account was topic banned from would be at risk of a block. ϢereSpielChequers 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• If EurovisionNim edits productively for 6 months in areas unconnected to the previous problems, then I would be willing to consider a review of the topic ban. ϢereSpielChequers 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

6 months is a bit too much. Is a WP:PROBATION or WP:ER/UC possible? I am aware of the WP:CLEANSTART, this typically applies normally for good-standing account. At the moment, I'm on a probationary restriction so that would not apply, and I'm not dumb enough to sock as I am aware of the consequences fully. 6 months is quite long. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• The user recently filed an ANI. It's about a different article/topic area but, just glancing at the 2019 discussion, seems similar in behavioural concerns. ANI link (relating to the Selfie article). Judging by the events on Selfie, I think it would probably be better for the user to keep the topic ban in place for now. I note that his photography interest appears to be in automobiles. Removing the ban will increase the volume in edits, and without adequate time to adjust to community norms could lead to behaviour that results in harsher sanctions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I knew this would happen Oshwah said i should post an appeal. I just knew it would not work. I am just to the brink of vanishing once again --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a suggestion to avoid you feeling the need to vanish, not a boldwords oppose. If I were you I'd want to keep the ban in place. It's substantially more unpleasant to have the community criticising your editing history at ANI than it is to put up with a ban for a couple more months until you're sure you won't end up in that position again. Sometimes taking it slow is a good strategy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I think that sounds like a plan. I will consider the ban appeal to relift the ban around October or November per say. In fact, I want to readjust myself to community norms and just help where i can. But I am not trying to be stupid where possible and yeah maybe October when I make more productive edits and less edit warring is when I'll reconsider for the ban to be lifted (appeal). Anyone agree? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It is probably not a good idea to plan an appeal. The best way forward is simply to edit outside of the areas mentioned by HighInBC (road vehicles), and become more familiar with Wikipedia norms over time without imposing arbitrary deadlines on yourself. CMD (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry but this is probably the stupidest idea you have come up with. There is absolutely no way I am waiting that long. In fact, I feel like I'm a worthless editor. I took my break, I thought everything was fine, yet I return and this is the welcome reception I get. As it is, I've created a strained relationship with my family and friends (blocking my ex-best friend today) and yet alone I get this. I do not even know where to begin first of all with User:Sjeintspen having gallery issues so I conformed to this expectation, yet User:Davey2010 with his bad habits reverted me and I cannot fathom whether my editing performance is not worth the energy. DO NOT lift the ban, as I know I will just return back to my old habits and I do not want to take that risk --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know if it's a good idea me commenting here given we've both butted heads recently (and the recent Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davey2010_ANI ANI thread too (archive link)) but given the recent issues that have happened in the past few days IMHO it would be unwise to lift it - Maybe give it till January and see how things progress and then maybe this can be revisited. Nim has also in the past few days made a comment about being drunk which I don't know if that's legit or whether it's an excuse for their incompetence (Tried finding diffs for this but discussions have happened all over the place) so honestly I don't know whether blocking would be a good idea or not, Anyway I personally don't believe the topicban should be lifted. –Davey2010^Talk 14:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to be blocked Davey2010. I cannot edit here anymore, what I'm going to do next, go crazy, get my head shaved bald, blast inappropriate music at a religious site? I can't edit with you constantly reverting me for no reason. I have had enough and I want to leave for good. I don't like anyone here its just not the place for me. On YouTube I could act as stupid as I want and no one will have consequences, yet you keep reverting me for no good reason. I won't be back until at least October. I cannot stand this bickering, reverting and disagreeing bullcrap. I can't fathom why WP:NOTAGALLERY cannot be followed per this with the amount of images added to gallery and its because of your version when you know clearly that its a direct violation. In fact when I removed the gallery you told me to f**k off, and yes the 'drunk' comment was a sideline joke which sadly you cannot handle. Go on Blokes Advice on Facebook and you will see this is the norm in Australia. Oh and how did you do in your GCSEs i wonder? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If you really feel that way immediately after unvanishing, and felt that way two years ago as well, then I think it's time to consider whether another hobby may be better suited for you. It's probably not worth doing something that leaves you stressed all the time. Plenty of hobbies that allow one to explore photography other than the English Wikipedia. Just in the Wikimedia universe there is Commons. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, that was an awful idea and probably warrants a block. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmm that's true, but I am fretful Davey2010 will just go to his WP:OWN ways and revert me everywhere specially the the Simple Wikipedia for no reason. I think a temporary block would be sufficient. I cannot handle editing here anymore. When I first started, it was a very collegial atmosphere, but recently, I think it just got worse and I'm tired of it --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I assume I reverted there because it wasn't an improvement however that edit was 2 years ago..... again I revert anyone and everyone who replaces images which aren't better than the ones they're replacing. Again I did state on Oshwah's talkpage to steer clear of images but again it's instead been your main focal point and even after Edit warring business you're still meddling with images, As I keep saying I have no problem with people replacing images providing they're better than the ones they're replacing.

Anyway I shan't reply further as my intention was never to derail this thread but to simply offer my 2p, Please stop pinging me here, Thanks and Have a good day. –Davey2010^Talk 15:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah don't and also if you want to avoid this issue, please stop reverting people. It doesn't work and makes you look like a fool. There are better things to do with your life than going all 'Karen' on people's edit. Does it matter really if someone makes an improvement not to your satisfaction. In hindsight, 90% of my edits were not my own photos, rather were from Flickr. Also the selfie blanked faces were because of privacy protection and my friends who were in the photos were going to sue me so I had to be careful or i'd have to sell my parents house. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Block - not only is Nim now resorting to childish behaviour such as reverting me[1] and then undoing their revert[2] but they now seem to believe I'm racist[3] amongst other personal attacks[4]. It's one thing disagreeing with someone on a talkpage (or 5) but it's another to blatantly call me a racist amongst other things. I'm certainly not a racist nor would I ever revert someone based on their race!. –Davey2010^Talk 16:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I just want to be blocked temporarily. Its just not worth the effort to behave anymore. I just think User:Davey2010 is the biggest idiot in town. I can't handle this site and I am going to be leaving for a bit (I am not retired/vanished like last time) but I am going to abandon my account until such time as Oshwah suggested. Its better to be blocked as my mental health is too stressed out that I want to cause problems for others --EurovisionNim (lets talk!)(contributionnes) 17:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I thought the GCSEs jab[5][6] and the related comment on your user talk Talk:Mercedes-Benz Citaro was also highly inappropriate. plus hostility to other users here [7]. Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks would've been the smarter idea if they don't think they can stop editing voluntarily; I don't think the editor realises they cannot control the duration of PA/harassment blocks, but this is firmly in that territory now. Since they're already subject to one IBAN but have issues with other users too, unfortunately I think this is perhaps not the environment for them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked EurovisionNim for WP:NOTHERE and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 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.

Socking

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 got a pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry. Do I steam in and exercise the banhammer, or should it go to SPI to make it "official"? Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots - Create an SPI report. This way, the sock puppetry is documented for tracking and record-keeping purposes. Let me know when you create it, and I'll check it out with my checkuser eyes and see if there might be any sleepers. ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah: - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhushan m bhandari. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mjroots - Perfect. I'm taking a look at it now... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:50, 15 July 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.

Second unblock/unban request from Zenkaino lovelive

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.

---

• Zenkaino lovelive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Contribs on Korean Wiktionary.
• Korean Wikisource
• English Wiktionary
• User was check user blocked and CBANned. It's been a rocky road, with many unsuccessful requests and block evasion. User made an unsuccessful appeal to the community April, 2020. Check user review at UTRS did not find anything troubling. User has been contributing on Korean Wiktionary, Korean Wikisource and English Wiktionary. There request must speak for itself. I have copied it from their talk page below.

Hello, admins. I'm asking for an unban. I've left enwiki because of my ban for socking. I think that the ban was necessary to make me change my ways. I understand now that socking is very wrong, because it is lying to the Wikipedia community. I'm sorry that I lied about socking December 2019. I just wanted to ignore it. Therefore, I'll disclose ALL my socks (Zenkaino lovelive (original), ABOChannel (sock), Steven Hansen (sock)), and I DIDN'T EDIT ALL WIKIPEDIA since Dec 2020, and did not sock since my last sock day. I evaded my block by using 3 IPs (198.16.76.28, 175.223.27.43 and 175.223.3.71). I'm told to and must not edit ANY Wikipedia. So, I'd like to ask that my ban be lifted. I'm strongly asking that the Wikipedia community would welcome me back into their midst. I understand that I will likely never be trustworthy, but I ask that I would at least be given another chance at the English Wikipedia. I understand that what I did was wrong. I understand that I initially got block for socking in the RfC, and then I tried to evade my block by socking again. I'm sorry for these. If I am allowed back on enwiki, I will only use Zenkaino lovelive account, in any edits, discussions, and votes. But sometimes IP will be used. At first, I thought that I was extremely mad about having the block, but as too long time went on, I came to realize that the blocking admin did the right thing, that my behavior at the time was getting out of hand, and that I take full responsibility for my actions that led to my block. Fortunately, 27 months have passed since I was sitewide indeffed from enwiki, and my mental health has recovered enough for me to contribute to Wikipedia. I have learned several things and I have grown in several ways during the time I was indefinitely blocked sitewide: I now understand that Wikipedia is built more on cooperating with other people than simply expanding easy access to knowledge, and that failing to do so may cause a systemic bias in Wikipedia's content or even result in losing my ability to contribute, especially when one of the two results in the other. I will never sock again. I understand that this is my second chance. I haven't edited ALL Wikipedia since December, including UTRS. Reliable sources are needed for any content and I won't cite unreliable sources. Also, if it seems incorrect, discuss first before putting it. I would make productive contributions by adding true information only, and if a conflict is occurred, I'll talk or discuss it first. I would like to contribute in language-related and Microsoft Windows-related articles, etc. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support, but with a one-account restriction. Specifically, "But sometimes IP will be used" worries me; let's head off the concerns by requiring all edits occur from a single account. Note that the previous unban request noted they were disruptive on IRC. This hasn't really been directly addressed, though I believe this time out, they have not been disruptive. I strongly opposed last time around. --Yamla (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  didn't see that. @Zenkaino lovelive: No logged out edits should be made. This is true for all of us. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• If this user is unblocked - something I won't vote on, since I haven't looked into it - they need to be aware that there won't be a lot of tolerance for future disruption. If disruption resumes, it will be nipped in the bud with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support one account restriction. No logged out edits. Also, strict adherence to MOS:ACCESS with respect to color schemes. And absolutely no canvassing here or via other Wiki's. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support With one account restriction. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support with one account restriction and instruction to only edit while logged in. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:45, 10 July 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:UBX/female and User:UBX/male categorized as fully protected despite being template protected

The title really says it all. I couldn't figure out where to post this so I'll put it here, given that only admins and template editors are probably able to fix this problem. I don't know why this is, the doc subpage doesn't seem to show anything that would cause this categorization. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It is coming from Module:Documentation somewhere - will need to dig in to it more. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is Module:Protection banner. I raised the issue of broken protection categories on that page's talk last year, and fixed a few cases. IIRC the problem is that not every combination of protection is accounted for. If there is a protection without a corresponding configuration saved, it defaults to the fully protected category. I suspect in this case it's because template-editor protection is not expected on User pages, and not expected in Module talk either.

I didn't want to fix these because it's a useful way to find cases where template protection is probably being used inappropriately. For example I remember finding a few cases of template-protected articles last year. They would blend-in in the 'proper' category, but would stand out like a sore thumb in the near-empty fully-protected category. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The same issue applies to multiple Module talk:Location map/data/x/doc pages ( Template protected yet are in the fully protected category).Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Repeated self-promotion by user

HammadMuhammadKhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly created the article(s) HammadMuhammadKhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Hammad Muhammad Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (both carbon copies of each other and recreated twice just today) and repeatedly used their own userpage and user talk page to essentially paste said article(s), despite warnings from other editors [8] [9]. It seems really cumbersome to deal with this, especially since this dates back to August 2020. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 10:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future you can report this sort of thing to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Salted. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Closure request

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

---

Could an uninvolved admin close Template talk:Infobox UK place#Proposal - remove automatic capitalisation from post towns please? Thanks. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:48, 16 July 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

Hello. Ongoing vandalism. Ear-phone (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2600:8807:A70D:2D00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked 1 month. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome back CodeLyoko (talk · contribs) after a period of inactivity to the clerk team as a trainee!

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

A question regarding an incident involving an Administrator

Hello @Doktorbuk:. I noticed your edit here (diff) and I agree with you. In addition, @Stephen: has reverted the edit 3 times in less than 24 hours - Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Please see @Deb: @Doc James: @Gamaliel: @Ixfd64: @Ixfd64: @Pegship: @Vanjagenije: @Rosiestep: @Amakuru:. Do some rules not apply to Administrators? Can content directly related to a talk page be purged like that? Ear-phone (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I see only 2 reversions. Deb (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Nonetheless I think the reversion of talk page content is to be discouraged. Personal talk page control is fine within limits. Perhaps something for ANI if it's not improved doktorb _words^deeds 20:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with you @Doktorbuk:. I'm not sure if you can restore the content? Otherwise something for ANI awareness. @Stephen: Ear-phone (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ear-phone has two issues with their editing: first, they are copying signed comments across talk pages for no good reason. All 4 of the comments above this one were added by Ear-phone to WP:AN in the same diff. Second, they seem to be more interested in picking fights than in improving content; their insistence that an obviously mistaken date of "Saturday, 13 July 2021" is proof of bias against the Global South would be comical if it were not so serious an accusation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ear-phone: Collaboration is required at Wikipedia and your approach (along with pinging the kitchen sink) indicates an inappropriate attitude. Is this fuss based on diff? You posted at User talk:Stephen#Date of picture (diff) with an absurd claim of "classic example of systematic bias by an administrator"—please assume good faith and try reading the explanations you received. There was no need for any prolonged discussion, and copying it to article talk was pointless—if you believe a wrong date is in the article, fix it. If you are reverted, politely post on article talk to explain your reasoning. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:: @Stephen: introduced an error into the article i.e. 'Saturday 13 July' (the 13th of July 2021 was a Tuesday). So I reverted the error diff with the reason in the edit summary. After this @Stephen: undid my edit, again introducing an error diff (the picture was taken on 3 July 2021 not 13 July 2021). I am not the only editor who found @Stephen:'s reverting contentious diff. Ear-phone (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Book namespace deleted

A couple of hours ago the book namespace was deleted. Just like with the recent Education program namespace deletion, I don't expect any issues to arise because of this and taken precautions to make sure everything goes smoothly. It is however difficult to know with certainty as namespace removal is very rare. If you see any issue you think may be related to this please ping me. --Trialpears (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

RIP. jp×g 05:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Trialpears the long thread at WP:VPT#Implementation of book namespace deletion paints a somewhat less optimistic picture. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith What specifically are you reffering to? Resolved minor issues with the notice displayed at any page that would formally have been in the namespace or the concern that we might not index one page? I don't think there's anything actionable there. --Trialpears (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying you can make everybody happy all the time. It just seemed dicordent to have read that thread where at least some people are obviously unhappy and then seeing your cheerful notice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, re-reading it I see that I may have gotten the wrong tone in the message. My purpose with the notice was just to inform about the situation and where to report possible issues.

I have to say though that it is quite sad to see it go given that it took a lot of editor work. I'm still unsure if deletion actually is the best way forward (see my neutral !vote on the RfC), but I do believe the consensus there should be implemented. If you (or anyone else) have concerns or questions about the implementation plan I would appreciate to hear about it. --Trialpears (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I would just like to take the time to commend Trialpears for their work in doing this largely thankless task. Wikipedia has an awful lot of - for want of a better phrase - failed experiments, sitting around, and I'm glad to see the loose ends being tidied up. Obviously I'm probably the wrong person to judge given I supported deprecation, but I don't see this notice as "cheerful" - it's reminding administrators and the wider community that the process has been completed. Some people are indeed unhappy about the result of the RfC, which is unfortunate but ultimately inevitable on such a large project (heaven knows there have been plenty of RfCs where I've not personally liked the outcome) firefly ( t · c ) 06:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Girmit Global Museum

Hello I was recommended to check here to have my page with original submission made available so that I can do the required editing. My draft is athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Girmit_Global_Museum. I also need to know from an administrator why my requester submission was declined. 'Background' & 'History' sections were deleted, here i have used my own words or provided citations. If I don't know what the issue is, I will not be able to do the editing. Also many of my references were removed. If you look at the Wikipedia sited for 'Indo-Fijians' & 'Girmitiyas' some of my references appear here, they are well know publications e.g. Coolitide and Chalo Jahaji (titles). Appreciate your feedback as I have spent much time getting references etc and wish to have the page published soon. Many thanks AwesomeAubergine (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You're fortunate the draft hasn't been deleted. As it stands, putting copyright violations aside, it is not even close to being ready for article space, and I doubt it ever will be. Finally, there's no reason for you to bring this here. You should be continuing to follow the normal AFC process.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Timtren was pretty clear that we do not accept material copyrighted elsewhere. Bbb23 is correct in saying the page looks deletable. In my opinion it could be deleted as ptomotional. FWIW, you do not need an admin's opinion on this. The AfC reviewers are far more proficient than I am at reviewing AfC submissions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As a retired museum professional myself, I welcome articles on notable museums. But this seems WP:TOOSOON, and would have to meet WP:NCORP, and not contain any text other than that written in your own words, yet still be based on proper, independent sources. At present this is just a poor rough draft, and not acceptable for mainspace. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

SPI Backlog

I’m not even sure if posting here might be of help or even necessary but FWIW, It does seem like a backlog is building at SPI, I note here that some requests have been made since (2021-7-11) and are yet to be attended to. For transparency sake, I initiated one of such cases that have been open for a while, see this file. Please, if my thought process of what constitutes a “backlog” is wrong, and me posting here , equally wrong or (premature) please do revert accordingly. Thank you all for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/K.D_Manikya_Tripuri from April is still awaiting administrative action. You can sort the table of current SPI reports to get an idea of how large this backlog is. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: SPI clerks have been notified of this backlog. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I try my best to take care of SPI reports that require a CU to handle so that they can be followed-up by an admin and things taken from there. I had a couple of users express that they don't like things to sit in the "completed" status, while others were completely fine with it. I'm not sure what the consensus is on that; all I know is that I'm just trying to do my part. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Oshwah, which we are all eternally grateful for. The collaborative project appreciates your dedication Oshwah. Celestina007 (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 - I appreciate the kind words. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Please block product spammer Jefferymo923

Jefferymo923 (talk · contribs) is a PROMO-only account that is placing product ads at my Talk page, and also at one article and one talk page (both revertd). ClueBot has already placed a {{db-spam}} at User talk:Jefferymo923. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the indef, df okra! ClueBot was hot on his trail, and so was Sdrqaz; thanks all around. Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I may have overstepped

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.

---

• Wikkedout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I just blocked Wikkedout for making personal attacks. I then realized that I might be seen as involved, as I had commented in a thread (Talk:Los Angeles#Language in lede) in which Wikkedout made the first of his attacks. I did not see the attacks as directed against me, but I now realize that the optics are bad. Any admin is free to take any action on the block they deem appropriate. I do not plan to formally notify Wikkedout, as I am not reporting his behavior, but rather my behavior. - Donald Albury 16:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) As far as I can see you had not interacted with the editor, only with the thread, and blocked them following their comment on the issue, without ever having interacting with them. In my opinion thats not being involved, but simply enforcing the NPA policy. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Albury Given Special:Diff/1033980528 and related comments on their talk page, I think your block was just fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. - Donald Albury 17:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Why does it always seem to be the people who get nearly everything right who are the ones to admit that they might possibly be fallible? If only those who make a habit of getting things wrong would do so. The editor needed to be blocked, and you were there to do it. I don't see anything wrong with that. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 17 July 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.

Missing RM

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.

---

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

A bulk RM at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride disappeared off the WP:RM page after it was relisted on June 3; see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Requested_move_at_Talk:Actinium(III)_chloride#Requested_move_25_May_2021. I relisted this again in hopes of fixing this technical issue. Is there another open RM like this? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

EDIT: Looks like this was a case of WP:BADNAC [10] by an involved user Keresluna (talk · contribs), which was then seemingly withdrawn by the same user [11] without re-adding the RM header. I've restored the template as thisclosure was clearly an act of gross misconduct. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I notified this user about the improper involved closure at User_talk:Keresluna#involved_closure. The user simply reverted the closure of the RM, but this did not relist it at requested moves. I arguably should have done so manually as LaundryPizza03 has now done, but did not want to perform an involved relist myself. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The move discussion has been reopened properly and now is on the talk page at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride. Nothing more to do here, since Keresluna states that they are no longer active. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 17 July 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.

Unban request from Pointer22

Pointer22 has requested (ticket:2020092510012529) that I place the following request so they can be unbanned, as per WP:UNBAN. A history of involved accounts is documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ACM7/Archive, which ultimately resulted in a community ban under WP:3X. In my capacity as VRT agent, I can verify that the person making this appeal is Allen Meadors based on information in that ticket, and could mark any active account under his control as a {{verified account}} if needed. I make no comment for or against this appeal. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to request that my Wikipedia standing be reinstated, the following is some history and my reasoning for my request.

• Four or five years ago, I was suspended from being able to add updates to my Wikipedia page because I and others had tried to correct some misleading information or delete it from the page. These attempts were removed and the original information returned. On several occasions, as my email address was denied access I used other address(accounts) to try to accomplish the above. I now understand that this is a violation of the Wikipedia policies and apologize for this error.
• The account ACM7 several people used it, don't even remember who now used it to add comments. No one has attempted to use it since my account was suspended.
• If reinstated, I will obey the guidelines as presented. If I have question, I will ask for clarification prior to making any attempted changes or additions.
• I will not use multiple addresses in my interaction with Wikipedia
• I have also asked any colleague that I know submitted changes back then to please not get involved. (as far as I know none have tried to intervene since then)
• I will request clarification and understanding of any future question regarding my participation with my personal Wikipedia page.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

ACM

• I verify that I am Allen Meadors

• This account was CU-blocked and therefore, in addition to community consensus, needs permission from a CU to be unblocked. That should come from a current CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Mr Meadows is reminded to not edit about himself directly, by himself or via anyone acting on his behalf. To discuss content and sourcing on the talk page. To raise issues at WP:BLPN as needed. To contact the WMF at info-en-qwikimedia.org if issues cannot be resolved by the foregoing. I can support unbanning under these conditions that are expected of all users. Further, I would like to know what areas Mr Meadows would like to contribute in. If managing content about himself is his only purpose, I see no use in unblocking. Any concerns about content about him can be addressed via WMF as indicated above without unblocking. Single account restriction/no shared accounts and CU approval go without saying, but there they are. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Deepfriedokra: VRT response from Mr. Meadors (note spelling, not Meadows please):

  I would use my access to acknowledge colleagues positive accomplishments and support the integrity of the Wikipedia page of those individuals.

  Also, I'll note that our email conversation includes an ongoing discussion about COI policy on Wikipedia, including my providing him with links to WP:COI, WP:PSCOI, and WP:AUTO. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, indeed. Personal knowledge. Please refer Mr. Meadors to WP:42. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not part of Mr Meadors employee recognition program. In other words, he seems to want to use the article as a branch of his PR department or an extension of his website. This is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and in fact he argues against any unblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• @ElHef: I seem to be hogging the discussion. I would like to encourage participation from other members of the Community. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Pointer22 and ElHef: Pointer22 has talk page access, no? Would it not be more efficacious for him to reply on his talk page and have these replies carried over instead of replying through an interlocutor/VRT? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Hm, fair point. I had spotted the revoked TPA on ACM7 earlier in our conversation and didn't think to check further. I'll encourage that course. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

LTA, no doubt

I just blocked User:TOKYO-BAKA, and soon thereafter User:TOKYO-AHO. CU is little help to me here. Perhaps some of you know who this is, and I hope all of you will keep an eye on Recent changes. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hey! |w:ja:LTA:SLIME. Both need global lock --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the Japanese LTA page says that the vandal engages in copy-paste vandalism and trolling, which sounds like either that's our guy or there's an imposter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

They (or imposter) have been active on enwiki with at least two users in past days, the other users created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Slime. Yesterday it was User:I pranked the wiki article.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You see if it you check global accounts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

TOKYO-BAKA and TOKYO-AHO --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

requested global locks. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks... Drmies (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help with DS

Sigh. As I've noted more than once before, I find the WP:ACDS process so confusing, I've never used it. At this point I feel the need to impose a WP:1RR sanction on COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis per WP:COVIDDS. I've once again dug into the documentation for how DS works, and I've once again come away unsure I understand it well enough to use it. So, could somebody who actually understands how DS works please impose that? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

To impose 1RR I believe you need to do three things:

1. Add |restriction=1RR to the Ds talk page template
2. Create Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis with the content {{ds/editnotice|1RR|topic=covid}}
3. Log it at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#COVID-19. Usually with a new bulleted list entry with the name of the page, type and duration of restriction.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd separately add that a) I think no admin action is necessary at this exact moment and b) I think 1RR is the wrong tool for the problems on that page in any case, and will simply frustrate legitimate editing as it does on Israel-Palestine or some American politics articles. It would apply to all editing, rather than simply the redirecting/stubbifying. I also think it would raise a serious concern with fairness in applying the COVID DS sanctions, where some groups of editors are sanctioned individually and others are too sensitive to deal with so "page restrictions" and "topic-wide DS authorisations" are used instead. I think the avoidance of consensus processes here (and in another similar case at ANI) is no different to that by Normchou which rightly resulted in an indefinite topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Roy, here's a handy link to remember: T:DSA (mostly for the bottom part, which transcludes Template:Ds/topics/single notice). HTH! El_C 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

RoySmith, imposing 1RR in a topic like that may be counter-productive because there are many more enthusiasts who learned their trade from facebook/youtube than there are good editors trying to stick to reliable sources. 1RR makes it easy for off-wiki campaigners to overwhelm the normal editing process. There is no good way to impose order but requiring people to focus on content/sources and topic banning miscreants is probably the only option. Along with WP:ECP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq I appreciate the input. At this point, things seem to be under control, so I'm not doing anything at the moment but keeping an eye on things. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User repeatedly adding copyright content to articles

User Jowinshaju96 (talk) has been repeatedly adding copyright content such as images and parts of Autocar news articles to many Mahindra vehicle articles as well as damaging formatting to articles. I and other users have reverted some of their edits but I believe this user should be blocked from editing since they have not responded to any messages on their talk page and keep re-adding the content after it has been reverted and persist with more copyrighted content additions. At this point it is becoming very disruptive. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've tagged Mahindra TUV300 and Mahindra XUV500 for RD1 redaction, as they added copyvio text from pages on https://www.autocarindia.com. It also appears that they have uploaded 26 images from that same source to Commons, which are listed at commons:Special:Log/upload/Jowinshaju96; 6 have already been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I learnt of this AN discussion at WP:DISCORD. Looking through this users contribtuions, I removed a copyvio from this user at Mahindra Scorpio and requested RD1. They also had their edit removed at Mahindra Thar for copyvio as well. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

IP concerned about Editor

How do I report an editor who is being hostile but without that editor knowing that I reported him? I don't want to make things worse or antagonize him; can I report anonymously? I think he is unstable, and it seems that he has been stalking my location, he seems psycho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:9442:6D00:40D9:C028:A0E7:8185 (talk) 09:32, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You don't. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are in fear of your physical safety, or are being stalked in the real world, you should contact your local authorities. There really isn't any way to make a completely anonymous report, and even if you did, they would likely figure out it was you anyway. 331dot (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)(so not that kinda issue. Never mind 331dot (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC))

This editor has been editing as an IP for a few days now, including edit warring in article space. I suggest that this user log back in to avoid a block for inappropriate use of an alternate account. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, and topic overlap with blocked User talk:Richardcheese2. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems I am not the only one who has noticed: [12]. @Yappy2bhere: seems to have come to the same conclusion. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)2603:8001:9442:6D00:40D9:C028:A0E7:8185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) COI editors sometimes perceive concerns about their COIness as hostility. I think OP might need a Partial Block, but I will leave that for others to determine. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, I'm looking into this now, following a request from the IP on my talk. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP's /64 range from the Richard Cheese article; if they persist with making entirely inappropriate comments about other editors being 'psycho', or requesting editors to contact them off-wiki to discuss article content, they should be blocked entirely. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all. My keyboard had rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it's needed in this situation, but just to make sure people are aware, WP:EMERGENCY provides useful advice. Email to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org might be appropriate in some situations. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Update It seems User:Richardcheese2 has asked users on twitter to edit the article that the are blocked from editing. I have upgraded their partial block to a site block for engaging in evasion and proxy editing. They don't seem to have any edits here other than writing about themselves, and none since their partial block from the article about themselves. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Help please!

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

---

I closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk subpages of Mauriziok as withdrawn. There is 250-odd pages tagged with the mfd template, which need to be removed. I've done about 5% of them and already have sore appendages and an acute sense of boredom.

Could someone potentially magic them away with some kind of tool, or alternatively can people chip in to assist with removing 15-30-50ish each? Thanks in advance.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel:: WP:AWBREQ can help you do that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanking you! Daniel (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried using the standard XfD tool on this but it seemed to fail to load the content. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, same here, I think it's cos they're talk pages? But that's just a guess. Daniel (talk) 05:28, 21 July 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.

Drow

Can an admin clear this edit summary @Drow, thanks. Jerm (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, done. Killiondude (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Jerm (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Changes at Requests for page protection

PSA. No one seems to have told anyone that Wikipedia:RFPP has been restructured for the past few days. It has. For those who are old school and use the watchlist for most things, you no longer need to watch RFPP as that will be useless. Instead you need to watchlist three sub-pages:

• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Decrease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (which appears to have turned into a dog's breakfast)

There's only a handful of users currently watching these pages, and I suspect most are not even admins. Admins (and others) do us a favour and watchlist these pages. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Just some background, it looks like these changes have been in the works for at least 2 years, see Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Technical roadmap. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Some warning would have been useful, and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit is a real nightmare which will be frustrating to people requesting edits and avoided by most editors and Admins. And I'm not sure how separating increases and decreases makes it easier for Admins. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Legend has it... ☻ El_C 14:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Doug, as I understand it, the new set up is mostly geared toward having a normal (non-rolling) archive (Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive). A very good idea, even if some kinks need to be ironed out. El_C 14:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: suggest that Template:RFPP/codes or the like get put in to the editnotices of the new subpages. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• BTW, cyberpower678, I noticed that your stress level is high. If it has anything to do with you adjusting Cyberbot I to the new set up (and any related hiccups), please know that your efforts are very much appreciated. I know I speak for many when I say that. Added: Oh, and ToBeFree, needless to say, you a legend, too! El_C 14:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: a rolling archive is a great improvement, thanks for explaining that. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Non-rolling, but indeed, a great improvement. And, as whiner-in-chief about this change (until I finally got it), I, personally, got some atonement to make to even the Karmic scale... El_C 15:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I see that the edit-requests page has been semi-protected for the next two weeks, which is why we're getting a lot of junk requests at WT:RFPP (which itself is now listed at RFPP) and probably elsewhere. I'm not sure where this influx of requests is coming from, but it's not a great situation and doesn't seem sustainable. It seems we have a choice between getting junk requests at the edit request page, or frustrating users and still getting these requests at the talk page. Given the choice I'm inclined to unprotect the main page, if this doesn't interfere much with whatever cyberpower678 has in progress. Ideally though, stemming the source would be a good fix. Anyone know why this is happening? WP:RFED never used to be so popular. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Zzuuzz, I don't where this influx is coming from either. It seems awfully suspect which is why I haven't hesitated to delete most of them, but we need to figure out where this is coming from and end it. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 18:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be Sushant Singh Rajput cause of death -related. I've sprotected for 3 days. El_C 20:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

But that's not all of it. For example Special:PermaLink/1034694364. It must now be linked from an interface page or template somewhere. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, mostly. Anyway, the protection notice has a link to WP:SEMI, which in turn links to the page in question... El_C 20:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there a discussion somewhere about that /Edit page? It seems like an odd choice to me to centralize that rather than use edit requests on article talk pages, but I'm not sure where best to learn more. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

GW, Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput is semi'd right now... El_C 20:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Oh, is the idea that this subpage would only be used to request changes to articles where the talk page is protected? The wording to me reads like it is intended to be used to request changes to any protected page, regardless of whether protection has been applied to the talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's the latter former, but the reason why it's being bombarded is because SSR's sister has demanded we violate our own biographical policies and the article has, since his death, been under some form of protection almost constantly due to conspiracy theories surrounding SSR's death, most of which posit that Rhea Chakraborty is involved (hence why that article is also protted). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I am unfortunately all too familiar with the SSR campaign. My question was more on the general intended usage of this page, though—I'm not sure I fully understand why these ought to be centralized into one /Edit page rather than the previous system of edit requests being made on the talk page of the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It's intended for circumstances where the user can't edit that talk page for whatever reason. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 23:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I see, that makes more sense to me. Though I suspect this incident with the SSR page will not be the only instance where brigading results in a specific talk page being protected, and so that brigading just moves to RfPP/edit. The same thing might happen on a smaller scale with partially-blocked users. Regardless, it might be worth changing the wording of the page to clarify the intended usage. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

We've seen similar disruption from the WP:CALIPH brigade. This is effectively filtered by 1106 (hist · log), which is something we may have to do more often. My main concern here is that the RFPP page never used to have these issues. In this revision, which is a right mess, there's no mention of Sushant Singh Rajput. I've looked through some of the templates and haven't found any relevant changes. This leads me to think there may have been some other change in signposting. I'll ping ToBeFree and Pppery in case they have any ideas. As it stands, having the article talk page, and RFED, and WT:RFPP all protected is a lousy situation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 05:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

My apologies for the tangent, but I am hoping a higher level of attention might accelerate a solution to this issue: Cyberbot I is deleting some requests from the RFPP main page and never adding them to subpages. I believe Cyberpower678 is aware of the issue, though I'm unsure where on the queue of priorities this issue fits. In the meantime, are there admins willing to keep an eye on the page to find and respond to dropped requests?

I am sure there are myriad intelligent ways to monitor dropped requests. My inefficient way is to monitor Cyberbot's Wikipedia namespace contributions, using my browser's find function to highlight "Clerking main", and scanning through to find page size reductions that aren't immediately proceeded by equal increases.

The most recent dropped request found using this method is a requested protection increase to Eric André made by Cerebral726 and deleted by Cyberbot in this edit. A similar edit soon after was handled appropriately, and I can't determine what caused the requests to be handled differently by the bot. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Similar discussions happening at Talk RFPP, Cyberpower678's user talk, and Twinkle talk. @HaeB, LaundryPizza03, ToBeFree, Meters, and SD0001: pinging involved editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are ongoing issues, my comments above are not a good explanation. Apologies again! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit is only meant for proposing changes to pages with protected talk pages. For example, Special:Permalink/1034614683 only contains such requests; all of the pages there had protected talk pages at the time of the revision.

Paper chase: Hebrew calendar is semi-protected with a semi-protected talk page. Try editing this page in a private window or while logged out; you'll see a blue button labeled "Submit an edit request". One can now append "&uselang=qqx" to the URL to see the name of the involved system message: MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. This system message transcludes Template:Protected page text/semi, which transcludes Template:Protected page text, which transcludes Template:Submit an edit request, the blue button. This button uses Module:Submit an edit request, which forwards requests to "protected-talk-page-request-page" as defined in Module:Submit an edit request/config. The value was recently changed in Special:Diff/1033960356. The main change, however, was Special:Diff/1033960240, which replaces a simple link to the relevant RFPP section by a "create new section" link (Line 83 here, later changed in Special:Diff/1034038441 to create a level-3 heading instead of a level-2 heading).

So what has happened here: It has become much easier to submit requests at WP:RFPP, for all types of requests (protection, unprotection and editing). We're now seeing all the people who would previously have looked at the old instructions and failed to create a request using them. There is now an easy-to-use button for creating a request. For every protected article with a protected talk page, there is now a relatively easy process (click "View source", click "Submit an edit request", fill the form, submit) to circumvent the talk page protection by making a central request. This wasn't my main intention when proposing the changes; my main intention was to make protection requests easier for those without Twinkle.

A possible "solution" would be hiding the "Submit an edit request" button on articles that have a protected talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(this would probably be easy to implement without any Module coding, using MediaWiki's {{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit|{{TALKPAGENAME}}}} in an "#if" statement, directly at MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to determine whether the button should be displayed at all, and then passing that information as a parameter to the template.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. The blue button is now only displayed if the corresponding talk page has not been protected against editing. This should greatly reduce the amount of requests like we had in Special:Permalink/1034614683, and the page can probably be unprotected for now. Ping Cyberpower678, the protecting administrator. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If we're no longer directing people from protected article talk pages to RfPP/Edit, and the page was specifically created for such requests, does it still need to exist? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, it was a section of WP:RFPP before; now it's a subpage. In either form, it still exists, and it can still be used for this purpose. Perhaps removing the blue button is already sufficient and we can show text pointing to the page instead, requiring people to read the text instead of blindly clicking a button. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(Special:Diff/1034921986) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and edits. I've undone the protection at both WP:RFED and WT:RFPP, and I guess we'll see where we go from there. On a relevant side note, please no one suggest a similar button for unblock requests. One of the reasons we don't have one is because we use the block message as an aptitude test. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Huh? Could someone please explain to me how the implementation of non-rolling archives is different to proposals in April and June that received a very chilly reception? I was under the impression that the community was virulently against it, then the proposal seems to have been implemented anyways ... Sdrqaz (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  "virulently against"? Rather uninterested and not seeing a need. Implementing a proper archive was in the making since the 2019 discussion at WT:RFPP; the opposition was directed against Chicdat's repeated proposal of something the community didn't have time to work on. It was part of a series of questionable requests that led to community annoyance and User_talk:Chicdat#Voluntary restriction. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I seem to have missed that someone pointed out to him that the proposal was in the works. I am aware of the voluntary restriction, but just confused that something you described as the community being "uninterested and not seeing a need" was implemented anyways: when I saw the response at the Village Pump, I assumed that the community was against. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Cyberpower678: so it looks like you decided to implement all these archives despite the closed RfC above - was there an overriding RfC that was as well attended and advertised? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Xaosflux, the one at WT:RFPP was open for 30 days as an RfC and 7 additional days at WP:CENT. The concerns in the above-linked discussions were mostly focused on the proposer's behavior and a lack of a perceived need, neither of which – horse in front of the cart please – has properly "overridden" the earlier decision to implement this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, wish we could have unFORKed those earlier. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Block request

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

---

There's currently a proposal on ANI to have me indef blocked. Which seems to stem from the fact that I didn't reply to @Fram: exactly when and how they wanted me to in a couple of discussions we were involved in. Also, Fram used the existence of a past block to justify the proposal. While I think the complaint is completely meritless I was already thinking of taking a break from Wikipedia due to IRL issues before Fram reported me. So I was wondering if I could be blocked for 6 months as a middle ground between being unjustly punished over nothing and past behavior, or no action being taken. I could really use a break for a while to deal with real life stuff, do some reflecting, and work on other not so toxic projects. I'm fine making the request when the proposal is over if I'm not indef blocked or it would otherwise be better to wait to request a block. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I could block you for 6 months, but no admin has the authority to override a community decision. To put it another way a self imposed block will not alter the community decision. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to alter the communities decision. Just not have to deal with it in the meantime and being blocked while it plays out so I'm not obsessing over it or being tempted to bludging the process with unconstructive comments seemed like the best way to do that. Plus I've seen admins make less harsh judgements for complaints that are meritless. I'll just ignore it until it's resolved instead though. Thanks anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You could try the Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer, but it isn't fool-proof. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:SELFBLOCK, self requested blocks are typically declined. Personally, I would normally consider applying a self request block if an editor requested it, depending on the circumstances. For the record, I wouldn't do so in the case of Adamant1 as I feel I am involved (see this thread if you want to know why). If I were not involved, I would not do so in this case. My reasons are that (1) there is a ongoing discussion to indef block Adamant1 and (2) that despite various threads regarding Adamant1's behavior concluding he was out of line (November 2020, December 2020, July 2021), the needed changes to behavior are not happening. Referring to the complaint in the ongoing thread as meritless shows a rather stark lack of understanding of the impact of their actions. I don't think a cool down block will help, even if it is for three or six months. We've been having these problems for eight months or more now. Also, this feels a bit like Adamant1 is resigning being an editor under a cloud. This could set up a false belief that the self imposed block somehow clears the past out, and is no longer an issue. There's just too much wrong going on here to apply a self requested block in my opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose An attempt to wave the white flag to stop a known process and end up with a lesser punishment should not be entertained. This user wore my nerves down when I vote!d on a few of their AfDs last year and they WP:BOMBARDed my rationales, and has only worn more editor nerves since then. No discipline process should have the accused dictate what sanctions should be applied. Nate • (chatter) 19:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in a nutshell, OP is asking for a lighter sentence because they believe they did nothing wrong. That's not how self-requested blocks work. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - If you want to take a 6-month wiki-break, then do so. It's quite easy, you just stay away from the project for that amount of time. Besides, I think your fate is being determined over at ANI. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There's already an ongoing discussion at ANI about a possible indef block. I don't see what this self requested block is going to solve. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 21:51, 22 July 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.

Help with unblock

Can another admin more familiar with OTRS take a look at this discussion on my talk page and unblock the user being discussed? I'm sure there's something that needs to be logged and/or some template added when unblocking a user in this situation, but I don't know what it is. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jauerback: having the admin from the other project at least providing the VRT ticket so we could look at it would be a good next step. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Xania:, can you provide the VRT ticket number? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the late response. Ticket is 2021021210005107. --XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 08:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if this editor actually is Pere Portabella - they need to be informed about WP:COI / Wikipedia:Autobiography. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk with DonFB

I'm having extreme difficulty talking with DonFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) justifying his rewrites/revert over my edits. We have unresolvable conflicts of interest, and just like policy states, the repeated undos is aggravating and stressful. I would like an administrator's opinion, not over the content disputes, but as to whether his behavior constitutes to personal attack, particularly when he would slyly pick at old wounds, like mentioning the previous ANI incident, or smugly bragging that his edit would remain stable for the period of a page protection.

Recent:

[13]

Archivable: [Talk:Boeing 737 MAX groundings/Archive 2] "brevity". I rest comfortably knowing that my improved version will be stable for the next four days.... :-) DonFB (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC) {ping|DonFB}} 133 KB (14,999 words) - 12:04, July 15, 2021

Shencypeter (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Comment - this seems to be a content dispute between the two of you. I've asked at WT:AV for others to join in and help find consensus. Mjroots (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Page protection backlog

Hi. There's a ~12hr backlog at WP:RFPP. Please could someone help out? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I overslept. El_C 14:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks El C. Try not to have the luxury of sleep again! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why did we change the main RFPP page to just be transclusions? I can't find any recent discussion. Anarchyte (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No idea, but it's a pain in the arse that the helpful edit summary with all of the various {{RFPP}} codes is gone now. I don't have time to dig into why everything changed, but at the very least PLEASE have someone restore the group edit notice(s). Primefac (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion further up about the changes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Primefac, I thought I did at Special:Permalink/1034077480, re-creating the editnotice? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Female bodybuilder enthusiast unblock request

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

---

Given the age of the block(2013), and the number of unblock requests that have been reviewed in the past I have decided to take this unblock request to the community rather than handle it personally.

In addition to the unblock requests on the talk page there is also UTRS appeal #45084 and UTRS appeal #39150.

I understand that they are admitting to some sock puppetry, and claiming that other sock puppetry was not true. They are also "willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed".

I am not familiar with the events prior to their block and at this point am withholding my personal opinion.

A checkuser has verified that there is no technical evidence of recent abuse of multiple accounts[14]. This is a standard offer request.

Here is the text of their unblock request:

I am requesting to be unblocked after six months of being blocked, which has been verified though Wikipedia:Check User, for sock puppeting. I am applying under WP:SO. My initial block was inappropriate (not checked though Wikipedia:Check User) and the overlap between the two accounts (Latitude0116 and me). However, my other bans were appropriate for sock puppeting afterwards. I have been blocked for six months and had time to go over my errors. I will never sock puppet again and identified my old sock puppets. I am willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed. I will stick to Female bodybuilder enthusiast account going forward. Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention on this matter. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: the original blocking administrator. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support w/ TBAN From Zoophilia, or really all animal related articles, broadly construed. They were caught socking just in December, and that last sock needed to be tbanned if they were a legit user. Valeince (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support w/ TBAN Admits wrong and states wants to go forward, after 10 years it responsible to want to return and given another chance. Des Vallee (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support On 25 April 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was confirmed to User:Fbbfan according to the CheckUser data, see here. Fbbfan never edited the English Wikipedia, but edited Ann Coulter article at Wikiquote, the same article one of their socks User:AHC300 edited 36 times, see diff. On 3 May 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Latitude0116 per behavioral evidence, see here. In this unblock request, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is claiming that they're not User:Latitude0116 and Latitude0116 also confirmed that User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is innocent and not related to them, see here. Since User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast has not socked recently and understood that what they did in the past was wrong and willing not to do it again, I'm willing to support this unblock request and the TBAN around zoophilia, broadly construed as that will stop disruption in that area. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 05:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unconditional - as Nnadigoodluck pointed out, no technical link was ever established between Female bodybuilder enthusiast/Fbbfan and the Latitude0116 case, however the behavioural evidence was quite compelling (significant unrelated topic overlaps). Regarding "no edits", there are other events that show up in checkuser data that can be used to establish connection, so I don't doubt the confirmation of those two accounts, however they should be re-tagged as "suspected" (they are not cu-confirmed to Latitude0116). I don't see where Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia was ever discussed, they were just lumped in with the disruption of another user, and without any conclusive evidence of disruption I can't see why a topic ban is necessary here. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 19:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  If Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia really hasn't been discussed, it should be. Starting with their repeated creation of articles such as Death by horse cock, Two Guys One Horse etc. [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Okay let's talk about it, then. I don't know the history of everything here but frankly, on the surface, all those creations seem to be legit. First they were trying to create an article about the website which was at the time apparently hosting the video referred to in the lede at Enumclaw horse sex case (or this contemporary revision, anyway), which evidently was 2guys1horse.com (I didn't go check). The final revision before deletion read in the lede: "2guys1horse.com, also called 2 Guys 1 Horse, Mr Hands, or Death by horse cock, is an Internet shock site/viral video, that has lead to over 500 reaction videos on Youtube. It was also featured in the 2007 documentary film Zoo and is regarded as the video of the incident that killed Kenneth Pinyan." The content was referenced (I didn't review the references but they were there) and covered a notable and sensitive topic without being gratuitous. It might not have been appropriate to have it separate from the Enumclaw article but I don't see any discussion about that, it was simply speedy-deleted by Fram for having no credible claim of significance, which without more information seems absurd. Another version at Deep Thrusts was deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as vandalism, which also seems absurd. Female bodybuilder enthusiast then simply tried to redirect these titles to the relevant related article, which was then deleted for being an implausible redirect (also absurd), except in one instance where The Anome deleted one as a redirect to a "joke page" (even more absurd). I say "seems" absurd because I would prefer to believe there is a related discussion somewhere that I haven't found, which would provide a better explanation than that a bunch of veteran admins ganged up on this user to censor their article. Female bodybuilder enthusiast seemed to be in conflict with Little green rosetta, who was Arbcom-banned a month later, and I also don't know what that's about.

  Anyway, all of this happened eight years ago, and so I still don't see why a topic ban now would prevent any sort of ongoing disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  The December SPI report lists some of their disruptive activity on zoophilia-related articles. To add on to what AndyTheGrump stated, the majority of their edits where to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, Legality of bestiality in the United States, Timeline of zoophilia, Zoophilia and the law (notice how the sock tried to redirect move that article to Zoophile rights by country or territory), which are all now (rightfully) deleted, so their edits to those articles are not visible in their contribution histories. Some1 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  It's confusing but I think you've got the timeline at least partly wrong. Zoophilia and the law was moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory, which was then moved to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was then deleted, however all three of those titles were the same article which has a continuous history going back to May 2006. Legality of bestiality in the United States and Timeline of zoophilia were both separate articles. The deletion discussions for all three indicate that they were deleted for being poorly written original research, not because they were inappropriate topics nor because of any editor's disruptive editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  On 20:31, 6 January 2017, AHC300 sock moved Zoophilia and the law to Zoophile rights by country or territory. Admin BD2412 moved the page back from Zoophile rights by country or territory to Zoophilia and the law on 15:11, 7 January 2017 stating: (No consensus found for likely controversial page move.) Those are all the same articles as the Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast, and the bulk of the content came from those socks. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory, where an editor stated: According to XTools [16] this article was primarily authored by AHC300 (talk · contribs), .... who is a pro-zoophilia user [17]. I didn't mention any timeline, just pointed out that those were the articles the socks frequently edited. My parenthetical above regarding the page move was to show how the user believes "bestiality" is a "zoophile right." Some1 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but you're wrong, and so was the editor referencing Xtools. Zoophilia and the law, Zoophile rights by country or territory, and Legality of bestiality by country or territory are not three copies of an identical article, they are the same article which was moved around. It was created under the title Zoosexuality and the law by FT2 on 19 May 2006, and FT2 was the principal contributor. It was moved to Zoophilia and the law by Avalik in 2010. At the time in 2017 that AHC300 moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory the article was a plain list of countries and their laws under the headings "zoosexual activity", "sale and distribution of zoophilic pornography", and "ownership of zoophilic pornography" (the list was present before AHC300 ever edited the article) so "zoophile rights by country or territory" was a reasonable move; BD2412 moved it back because the move hadn't been discussed, which is a pretty standard reason to revert a move (essentially WP:BRD). AHC300 then expanded the redirect at Zoophile rights by country or territory with a copy of the same list but they greatly expanded it, and that was then moved to "Legality of bestiality by country or territory" after a talk page discussion started by Flyer22 Frozen. That page's history was later split and now lives at Legality of bestiality by country or territory (version 2), and that's the big reason why Xtools will get this wrong.

  In the move discussion that I mentioned, AHC300 wrote this: "Oppose Because there are various zoophile rights organizations thoughtout the world and various legal cases in places like Canada and Germany that upheld legal zoophilia. There are organizations in the 20th and 21st century that have been documented to be zoophile rights organizations. The oldest documented zoophile group I could find is the "Students of Objectivism for Rational Bestiality". It's not Wikipedia's job to declare what is and isn't a right. I try to be as neutral as possible on these issues. Some libertarians, Objectivists, anarcho-captialists, liberals, etc. would either argue that animal abuse laws already cover harm to animals and sexual activities between animals and humans should be allowed. The issue of zoophile rights are evolving and maybe in a few decades they will be viewed as another part of civil rights movement." That last sentence is an awfully bold (and maybe offensive) prediction, but otherwise I basically agree with the statement. Flyer inaccurately equated zoophilia (a medically recognized paraphilia with notable advocacy and support groups) with bestiality (human sexual activity with animals, illegal in most places) and AHC300 was not the only editor who pointed out the distinction in that discussion. I do agree with that page's deletion: it was synthesizing conclusions from unrelated sources, and also probably not a notable separate topic, but I don't agree that its creation is evidence of promotion of a POV by AHC300 or Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if they are the same person. I also don't agree with your assumption that these moves imply that "the user believes 'bestiality' is a 'zoophile right'", as you said; in fact they were arguing against that position. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: You might be aware of this, so please excuse me if the following is not useful: the term "zoophilia" is actually a dog whistle used by people actually engaging in bestiality (i.e. actually having sex with animals) to encourage support for their cause and to advocate for the legalization of bestiality. In Germany, for instance members of the Zoophiles Engagement for Toleranz und Aufklärung, a self-proclaimed "zoophile" organisation, is in fact made up of people advertising on social media their romantic and sexual relationships with their domestic animals. I'm always willing to AGF, but we should be skeptical of people making conceptual distinctions between bestiality and zoophilia: in a lot of cases, it's just a way to move bestiality in the mainstream by arguing (or suggesting) that there is nothing wrong with zoophilia. JBchrch talk 13:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Some1, you aren't an admin, for obvious reasons it's probably not worth arguing with an admin over the history of deleted pages.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  That is true; if I could see the revision history, then I can bring up diffs showing the user's disruptive editing in that topic area. Legality of bestiality in the United States is the article that I was thinking about, where it was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast socks and was mainly edited by those socks. Admin JBW deleted that back in January when AHC300 was blocked for socking, stating: (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user... in violation of ban or block. (Despite the long time for which the article has existed, no substantial content appears ever to have been added by anyone other than the creator, using various sockpuppets. Other edits have all been minor or reverted, or both). Ivanvector said: AHC300 or Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if they are the same person I already included diffs in my !vote comment below where they confirmed that they (Female bodybuilder enthusiast and AHC300) are the same person: [18][19]. It's even visible right now on their talk page, third unblock box: I am User:AHC300. AHC300 also made this edit to Zoophilia in the "Arguments for bestiality section" [20], would you have kept or reverted it and why? Some1 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you, Some1, in fact I did miss that admission. That changes my opinion entirely, see below. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am not going to support or oppose, but Female bodybuilder enthusiast should at least be:
  1. Restricted to only one account, since they had a sleeper account Fbbfan at the same time as the Female bodybuilder enthusiast account for whatever reasons, then engaged in sockpuppetry as CentrumZero, Snowden supporter, 61-1099lm, Chiseled abs cutter, GayTenn, Dawkinsfan44 (there's probably more); User:AHC300 was their latest sock that was blocked in January (they confirmed it here and here), and they had the GregThomas93 and Lupertazzi342 accounts at the same time as that AHC300 account.
  2. Topic-banned from zoophilia (or all animal-related articles, as another editor above suggested), broadly construed. Some1 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock w/ TBANFrom Zoophilia, User is ready. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I see a one account and no logged out edits as a given, but I need to be clear. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• if this user is unblocked - something I won't vote on, but about which I'm skeptical - they need to be aware that there won't be a lot of tolerance for disruption in some other non-zoophilia topic. If disruption begins in some other area, it will be nipped in the bud with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia (broadly construed). I'm supporting the tban because they've been a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND in this area before, and a tban gives the highest possibility of success going forward. Much as I personally dislike that subject area, I'd be willing to vote in favour of lifting the tban at some point in the future, when this user has a substantial history of constructive contributions and no significant disruption. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia Yamla has convinced me to support this request tentatively, though I was originally on the fence. Both of those restrictions are a deal breaker for me. There should be a very low tolerance to disruptive behavior. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, convert to site ban - by their own admission, this user used sock accounts to evade a block for nearly a decade, and they're only agreeing to abide by the rules now because they were caught. Six months is the bare minimum for the standard offer; this user ought to sit out for a lot longer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'd like to ask the user, if they are unblocked, how do they plan to contribute to Wikipedia (in non-zoophilia-related areas)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

She said in the UTRS ticket, but did not carry it over to her talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose I'll be the jerk that says it: Why are we ok with someone who blatantly used a number of socks for over 10 years to avoid a block to come back, all because they said "Oh you caught me!" Add to that their editing history, and I don't see a reason they should be allowed to edit. Just because this is the encyclopedia anyone CAN edit, doesn't mean it is the encyclopedia anyone SHOULD edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now at least. If he does get reinstated, he should be permanently banned from any animal-related articles. —-Delderd (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per RickinBaltimore. People with a very long record of misconduct are not credible when they promise to stop misbehaving. Sandstein 21:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Rickinbaltimore and Ivanvector. I am not convinced that this is "I'm sorry I behaved badly" so much as "I'm sorry I got caught." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• As the blocking administrator who was pinged here, I have no strong feelings either way. Frankly, I don't even remember this block since it was made eight years ago. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
• To those who are opposing I want to say I 100% understand where you are coming from. I am supporting the unblock because of the time that has passed and the knowledge that they can be reblocked with very little effort should they further disrupt the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

  The "time that has passed" is about six months, versus about eight years before that during which they knowingly and deceptively evaded their block. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  We have no policy dictating a duration extension to the six-month standard offer for long-term sockpuppetry, and this isn't the venue to discuss policy changes. It is what it is, the user meets the requirement. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  To be fair the standard offer is not a policy, rather a very informal tradition. People can use whatever standard they want when considering it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support with topic ban as proposed. The editor is willing to be a constructive contributor. Re-blocking is trivial to do if the need arises. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support with topic ban as per the above. Obviously there will be eyes on the editor, so they will be well-motivated to be positive and productive. If that does not happen, a reblock would be fairly automatic. BD2412 T 04:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As I have given my opinion of what should be done with this request, I will not close, however this was archived due to inactivity. Can an admin that has not commented on this please review and make the call as to what to do with this request? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Looks no consensus to me, but I opined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:02, 24 July 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.

CheatCodes4ever's unblock request

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

---

CheatCodes4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently community banned due to an ANI discussion that led to their indefinite block. The discussion can be found at AN-archive 1027#Competency issue with CheatCodes4ever. There had been unblock discussions on their talk page until I noticed that a community discussion led to the block and asked CheatCodes4ever to appeal to the community instead. This is now happening.

Per the block log, there is "no CU evidence to not unblock." The unblock request reads as follows:

Okay, I think I'm officially ready now. Please read my previous unblock requests for more information. ToBeFree has told me that I am banned and this needs to be moved to WP:AN, so here we go. In terms of what I was blocked for, I was blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia. This was because I didn't listen to advice in the past and it made everyone think I was WP:NOTHERE. As stated in my previous unblock request, I do not no why I didn't listen to advice back then. I guess I could say I was immature? I honestly don't know how to explain it. I really don't. But for what it's worth, it took 22 months for me to start using talk pages. From January 2018 to October 2019, I never talked with people on talk pages. In fact, I used to not even go on my talk page, so if someone sent me a really long message, I wouldn't have read it all (so in other words, if you're reading this @Jmcgnh:, as much as you don't have much to do with this, I noticed you sent me a message here on my old account, but I never read all of it until about 14 months later, so I just wanted to say, I'm sorry about that). Anyway, I have now learnt to use talk pages. Back to me getting unblocked, if I do get unblocked I would like to make edits such as these edits along with participating in reverting vandalism/unsourced edits. I'll probably end up doing other stuff, but one thing's for sure: I won't cause as much trouble as I did in the past. You can learn more about that here. In terms for what I did do in the past, I continuously added unsourced content. This was because I kept forgetting to add a source. However, from now on, I will try my hardest to remember to add a source. In addition, I created lots of articles for non-notable topics. If you have read my previous unblock request, you will see I have learnt from that and now understand how the notability system works. Please could I be unblocked? Thanks, CheatCodes4ever (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Participants of the original discussion: @Robvanvee, The Mirror Cracked, CaptainEek, Kinu, NinjaRobotPirate, Yamla, Ian.thomson, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Serial Number 54129, Michepman, Celestina007, Darthkayak, Jusdafax, RickinBaltimore, Johnuniq, and Ad Orientem: Ping requested by CheatCodes4ever. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• Leaning Oppose as written. I've had a read through their talk page and its history, and about two months ago they started compiling their list of edits they planned to make. There's a few items that were added to that list that are deeply concerning to me, and in my view indicate that this editor still really doesn't get the concepts of sourcing and notability. Among the edits they proposed to make were the creation of a copyvio article on a non-notable phobia, cut and pasted from a source that obviously does not meet requirements for a medical article [21]; adding poorly sourced speculations on someone's relationship status to a BLP (complete with disclaimers that the sources may be unreliable and that they find sourcing "confusing") [22]; and writing a discography sourced only to Spotify [23]. Even their remaining proposed edits are still slightly problematic and show a lack of understanding of sourcing policies, like proposing to change the release date in a good article based on what seems to be a combination of original research and guesswork, and requesting that a redirect be deleted due to lack of sourcing (redirect link plausible search terms to related articles, there's no need for them to be sourced). Their responses to the criticisms of their proposed edits are equally as concerning, and include statements like "I don't remember being told that it was wrong to copy text" (in response to the copyvio). I suppose that in order to support an unblock I would need to see some kind of evidence that this user understands Notability and sourcing guidelines, because it is abundantly clear that as recently as a month ago their understanding was little better than when they were first blocked. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment CheatCodes4ever again omits several key points in their unblock request. First, they were indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry, too, not just for WP:NOTHERE, as they imply in their unblock request (their sock puppetry is documented here, here and possibly also here). Second, CheatCodes4ever keeps claiming that they were not listening to advice in the past, as they were not reading their talk page in 2018 and 2019, but now they are. This does not appear to be true either. Their talk page is full of repeated and failed attempts to advise the user (as Ian.thomson said: "The root cause of all the problems you're facing is that you haven't been paying any attention to the advice anyone gives you"), even in 2020 and 2021. The user keeps repeating they are listening to the advice, but the results do not show it. For example, after one of their countless unblock requests where they, as always, promised they were mature now and understand everything, they were trying to prove that they now understand how to edit reasonably by suggesting (among other problematic things discussed on their talk page) an article on Kappaphobia. This was so close to insanity that it was almost indistinguishable from trolling (violating copyright by copying the text directly from the website, which was clearly a scam website and the text itself was obviously total BS, computer-generated, generic template-based text, used on many other websites on many other topics—a fact that should be blatantly obvious at first sight to any reasonable editor). So, I still see deep, chronic problems with the user, who still fails to at least admit them. It doesn't really matter whether the user is doing it on purpose or unintentionally, as WP:CIR explains that the end result is basically the same.—J. M. (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose based on J. M.'s findings. The suggestion to create an article on Kappaphobia was made just last month and, I'm afraid, shows we are far better off with this user remaining blocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I remember the original ANI discussion, and went back over it and the newer issues brought up above. There's just no sign that this user will ever be a competent editor. DoubleCross (‡) 17:50, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I was the admin who originally indef'd the user. I don't see anything here that would make me want to revert that block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given some of their recent unblock requests and attempts at article creation seen on their talk page, I do not believe that this user can contribute in a constructive manner. I doubt that this user is intentionally being disruptive, but there's just too much WP:CIR and/or WP:IDHT going on here. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose with regret. After a reasonable period of time from a block I usually look for reasons to give editors a second chance. And it must be admitted that I have never really suspected CC4E of deliberately malicious behavior. So this is not a NOTHERE situation. My problem is that while active they were a monumental time sink for numerous editors, especially over at WP:AfC. But lots of other editors were involved including Ss112. WP:CIR is definitely a factor here. Compounding that, is their deliberate block evasion after I specifically warned them not to and offered hope for a WP:SO after one year. So we have a lot of issues and I am highly skeptical that they are even capable of constructively contributing to the project unless their hand is held. The only way I'd even consider such a request is if they were adopted by an experienced editor with plenty of background working in the music genre. But honestly I don't think it's worth the trouble. Their motives may have been good, but the bottom line is that CC4E was not a net positive and I do not believe that is likely to change if they are unblocked. I would gently encourage them to find another hobby. (I am no longer active on the project and most of my notifications are turned off. If you wish to contact me, please do so by email via the link on my talk page. I apologize for any inconvenience.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 24 July 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.

Genetic history of Africa

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.

---

Does this "article" qualify for WP:G6? There's Draft:Genetic History of Africa which should be moved there, and it is clear that that is only an "article" because it is a title that should be blue but we didn't have one article where it could be redirected to. Also, the links on it are also outgoing links from the draft (or should be). Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:46, 25 July 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.

Ren Keyu article assistance

I need help, the button to review for uploading and publishing are gone and IDK why. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ren_Keyu talk

Please see Template:AfC submission/submit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Unreformed disruptive editing by 16ConcordeSSC

16ConcordeSSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 31hours by Oshwah after a previous WP:ANI discussion here. Upon return this editor continued to mark every single edit as "minor" while making sequential and cumulative edits to add unsourced information and changing wording and punctuation to fit personal preferences. Examples are:

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4
• diff5

The editor is particularly obsessed with the Rutland Railroad where he made sequential edits with only the subject's web home page as a bare url here:

• diff6

which he then added back after another editor reverted his changes:

• diff7

This editor refuses to respond to warnings from other editors and shows disrespect to the work of other editors with comments such as "fixed grammar", "my edit should never have been deleted", and "sloppy commas and run on sentances" here. It's very difficult to discern what is a useful edit and to clean up the article without picking through each and every one of his "minor" edits.

Per WP:CIR editors must have "the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus..and avoid editing in areas where their lack of skill and/or knowledge causes them to create significant errors for others to clean up". Blue Riband► 05:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Riband: I see they are using edit summaries but still marking edits as minor. I've blocked them from editing articles indefinitely until they respond here (or possibly their talk page) and convince another Admin to unblock them. Doug Weller talk 12:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I think he's choosen to leave Wikipedia as indicated by this message left on my talk page. Blue Riband► 11:58, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Blue Riband Doug Weller While his parting message is certainly uncalled for, I must say, I don't think his edits were all that bad. Clearly he's a newbie, and he emailed me because he was quite confused as to what was happening. Like many newbies, especially on mobile, messages and notifications are received shoddily at best. (A problem the WMF should have fixed years ago!!!) So what, he was adding half referenced additions to a page with almost no references. I'd say he was improving the quality of the page, and the solution could simply have been to add some CN tags where he missed adding references. That his references weren't fully formatted in the ideal way? That's not an issue, that's why we have gnomes. It was just a page about a local railway that he was clearly interested in, not some life or death COVID or politics page. I think this is a case where we have severely BITEn what could have been a productive newbie editor. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a new account of DonPevsner (talk · contribs), who has edited for many years. DrKay (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw that the editor was starting to attempt referencing after their short block expired, as indicated here, but it didn't happen until the block got their attention, and in edits like this one, they add elements not explicitly backed by the source. Nothing in the timeline about a "two-year delay in bankruptcy court", although one might make that assumption. Couple this with edits that actually make punctuation worse, and now you have multiple editors spending time sifting out the good from the bad. Overall, it was disruptive to the project, and had the editor been willing to discuss or engage on their talk page using a fraction of the energy they dedicated to dropping nasty talk page messages, some of these relatively minor issues could have been worked out. To presume they may have missed the warnings is a big stretch, considering the slight change in behavior after the first block. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

CaptainEek, I cannot agree with your assessment of 16ConcordeSSC as he appeared to be hostile to any advice or correction right out of the gate. On June 5th, his second day on Wikipedia, he demanded a mediator at his user page. The next day he comments on his talk page "Are all of you self-interested technocrats who care only for computerized rules and nothing for dishonest content on sites? If so, to hell with all of you.." In his later "minor" edits he shows disrespect for other editor with comments like, "sloppy grammar and run-on sentances". Even if an article DOES indeed have "sloppy grammar and run-on sentances" there's no need to be uncivil. Something like "edited for clarity" would have sufficed without denigrating another editor's work. DrKay, DonPevsner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows the same pattern of editing as 16ConcordeSSC, although the former account seems to have been abandoned. DonPevsner's addition of unsourced material to Steamtown National Historic Site was questioned by an editor and he replied with hostility to being challenged. It's a real shame it had to end like this because he clearly his interest and knowledge - but no willingness to work in collaboration. Per WP:CIR competance includes ..."the ability to communicate with other editors and abide by consensus...Blue Riband► 20:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

16ConcordeSSC's first edit was to the talk page for DRN, next two to the talk page of centralized discussion, fourth to a user talk page, fifth to DRN talk again, then four to their own talk page and one to their user page. They were given advice, help, and links. They are now insisting (repeatedly) on their talk page that they had no idea they even had a talk page until today. At over 1400 edits and after ignoring multiple warnings and failing to explore any of the resources provided to them, they need to start taking responsibility for their actions on wikipedia. This user talk page comment, this comment to an article talk page, and this edit to an editor talk page are all uncivil and belligerent. Being new does not excuse those comments. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I would concur with GoneIn60 and Blue Riband. In addition to his problems with sourcing and his belligerence, most (but admittedly not all) of his grammatical "fixes" actually introduced errors which necessitated subsequent clean-up. Grandpallama (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Appeal of BLP ban for Jabbi

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.

---

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

Almost 6 months ago I was banned for a year for violating BLP. See this notice. I have learnt from that experience and am now more sensitive to BLP policy. Since then I have not touched a BLP article. I have made several substantial edits on notable articles which have, in my opinion improved them considerably. I would like to be allowed to edit BLPs again because before my ban I had started a review of Alexander Lukashenko, and had reached his first term in office, which I would like to continue with. My violation was with an article I created myself, which has since been deleted for lack of notability. Thanks for reading. --Jabbi (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

You were not banned six months ago, but 4.5 months ago. Your first reaction was to protest the ban at WP:ANI, but you gave up on that when you got pushback from other editors and administrators. I think it's way too early for you to be appealing a one-year ban. You appear to believe that the fact that you apparently have not violated the ban deserves some special award. No violations might be considered in an appeal if you were to wait longer. In any event, I oppose lifting the ban. I also think you should notify Nick of this appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Bbb23. The ban was about two different aspects. I did not go into that in my appeal because I thought that wasn't really relevant anymore. I contested one of the two aspects and desisted when I inadvertently repeated sensitive information in my argument. What I learnt from that was to exercise more caution when it comes to BLP. If you consider lifting a ban a special award, then yes. Otherwise we would not be discussing this no? I have almost served half of the ban and I remain a valuable editor. The guidelines on appealing do not suggest a point in time relative to the appeal or any other characteristics that would be taken into account. I'm happy to notify Nick and El C who were most active. --Jabbi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

When I said to notify Nick, I meant pursuant to the instructions at the top of this page, which, apparently, you did not bother to read. Instead you pinged him, which I had already done anyway. I struggle to understand how you became an administrator and bureaucrat at is.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page." This is not a discussion about Nick, but about my appeal to his decision which I understood to be done in a sort of probation way. I thought the way this worked is show good behaviour and we'll give you another chance. Seems to have backfired. There's probably a lot you don't know about Iceland, it's a very small wiki, I am in fact high in the top contributor list there. Although I haven't been active for the past couple of years. --Jabbi (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose lifting ban. Reading through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330#User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP shows a failure of understanding and acceptance of the circumstances of the ban. I don't think near enough time has passed since then, nor do I see these issues being addressed here and now. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input HighInBC. Yes I did contest a part of the reasoning for the ban at the time. How exactly can these issues be addressed here and now beyond me saying that I have a fuller understanding and take greater care around BLP? --Jabbi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you want me to tell you what words you need to say to demonstrate an understanding of these issues? That is not how demonstrating an understanding works, nor is simply saying that you understand. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I take your point. I have been an active editor in the Icelandic Wikipedia for longer than I care to remember and only recently become very active here. My violation was twofold, limited to the talk page of a person whose article I had created; 1) I cited the words from a recorded interview with an academic of a respectable university in which he alleges possible criminal activity and 2) I used a value laden term that alleges corruption to refer to this individual. When reflecting on this admins should be very conscious that there is not economic, or otherwise, freedom in Belarus, it is in some ways more akin to China than it's neighbour Lithuania. In other words, people do not rise to the top unless they have political favour with Lukashenko. I wrongly assumed that this was not contested and that the fact that someone achieves success in Belarusian business was acknowledged to imply collusion by default. Anyway. I understand that this is not acceptable. I read up on BLP and was particularly curious about a sensitive issue concerning an Australian minister and how BLP is handled on WP in that case. What I took from that was to exercise more caution. --Jabbi (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, Jabbi was BLP banned because of serious BLP violating edits surrounding Lukashenko and people around him. Considering that last month, they created and defended Europe's last dictatorship (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europe's last dictatorship) and Draft:Europe's last dictatorship, I think it would be better to strongly remind Jabbi of the topic ban and where it applies, instead of lifting the ban. Many of their other mainspace edits seem to be about Lukashenko as well, e.g. this unsourced bit from this month. Fram (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Fram, you might be interested to know that the article was generally considered not to be notable enough. It's not a POVFORK. At the end a redirect was re-created, the article existed before I put in well sourced content there. --Jabbi (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. These are not only direct violations of the BLP topic ban, but are in the precise area that resulted in the ban. In addition to not removing the ban I think the duration needs to be reset to the point of the most recent violation. I also think more attention needs to be paid to their edits. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Fram, that's not correct. The violation was only around one person related to Viktor Lukashenko. You can seek confirmation from Nick or El C. I was not topic banned, I was banned from editing BLPs see notice. It is difficult to edit Belarus related material without mentioning the president and his actions. It is an authoritarian country. --Jabbi (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting ban and restart 1 year at the conclusion of this thread @Fram: Well done, I say! @Jabbi: You attempted some sort of detour around your TBAN. You created a sneakily article titled about the very subject that merited your TBAN. Your doing so shows a supreme cynicism toward the Community and/or a supreme obsession with Viktor Lukashenko. Clearly, your TBAN must be maintained to prevent disruption. Clearly, you need to let go of this subject and find something else to edit about. Please understand that the TBAN applies to the subjects of Biographies of living people, regardless of how the article is titled. And that it includes writing about the subject anywhere in Wikipedia. (added post reply above) OK. No editing about any living person anywhere on Wikipedia. You violated the TBAN. It must not be lifted. The Wikilawyering is not a good sign. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

  Noting and applauding Nick's comment below. If making the TBAN clearer is required, then let us do so. I think this thread tells us why the TBAN should be clarified and not lifted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra Viktor Lukashenko is the son of Alexander which is the president. I have an obsession with neither thank you. There was nothing sneaky about me creating that article, it does not show cynicism. That article title is well documented to be a synonym for Belarus. I have not violated any guidelines. Your comment here is highly misguided. Please point to a violation and explain why it is a violation. The term Europe's last dictatorship refers to a country, not a person. You can seek the confirmation of Robert McClenon if you want. --Jabbi (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In this edit I point out that there's a difference between Europe's last dictatorship and Europe's last dictator and that I support the decision to have the article changed again to a redirect. I have not violated anything. I hope you will reconsider your stance Deepfriedokra --Jabbi (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• If the community decides to reset the ban for another year, I recommend that the ban be clarified. Nick recorded the ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2021: "(Jabbi) has been banned from editing the biographies of living persons for a period of one year for repeated violations of the BLP policy." That can be read as being prohibited from editing BLPs, i.e., articles, not necessarily making any edit involving a BLP, which is far broader.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree the wording is ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean something far narrower than probably intended. I think the wording "all edits concerning recently deceased or living people broadly construed" makes the intention more clear. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I really shouldn't have said "community" as this is an AE-enforcement ban. The appeal should have been filed at WP:AE, and the result should be made by uninvolved administrators, not the community, although the community is of course welcome to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thought when this was first posted. However I saw at WP:AE it says an editor may "request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN");". So I suppose this is an acceptable venue. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, thanks. In fact, the instructions go on to say that if it's filed at AE, it's the usual uninvolved admins, whereas if it's filed at AN, it's "uninvolved editors". That means the appealer can choose who decides, sort of like acceptable forum shopping.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Surely I can not be punished for violating an interpretation established 4.5 months later. --Jabbi (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Even under the narrowest of interpretations your draft is still a BLP because it discusses living people, even it is not the primary topic of the article. The policy is clear when it says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia", that means any material about living people even if not in draft space, even if not the primary topic of the page. The suggested clarification of wording is because you don't seem to get this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think your interpretation is very narrow on the contrary. The article was about a dictatorship wherein a reference to the dictator is implicit. We've established that I was banned from editing BLP articles. I don't see a problem there, neither did Robert McClenon at the time. --Jabbi (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I know you don't see a problem, and this is the problem. Since you are trying to use the wording of your ban to justify this then let's quote it: Topic banned from editing the biographies of living persons (and recently deceased persons, as described in the biographies of living persons policy) for a period of one year.

It does not say articles. It says "the biographies of living persons". I have already quoted the part of the BLP policy that makes it clear that BLPs are any material about living people anywhere on Wikipedia. Our BLP policy is not narrow, it is very broad and intentionally so. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, The notice does say biographies and I understood it to be limited to articles about living persons (I am being honest here, it would hardly make sense for me to come here with the appeal otherwise). It is now being discussed whether to expand the definition and lengthening my ban to clarify that. --Jabbi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Jabbi, how do you reconcile your two statements,
  • "'Europe's last dictatorship or Europe's last dictator are commonly used in Western media to refer to Belarus and Alexander Lukashenko respectively."
  • "there's a difference between Europe's last dictatorship and Europe's last dictator" ? - Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi the article I edited was about the term referring to the country, because that title refers to the perceived post of dictator the connection is implicit. It's obvious that I edited the article about the country, the dictatorship. How can that be done without referring to the dictator? A dictator is a person, a dictatorship is a form of governance. I don't really understand what you are trying to imply with the references to my edits. I say that Europe's last dictator is used to refer to Lukashenko, which is implicit by the first term. In the second quote I just remark that dictator is not the same as dictatorhsip. --Jabbi (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I must apologise for causing much of the uncertainty - I had not intended the restriction to be so narrow, nor did I think it would have been skirted around so comprehensively. Jabbi has a serious and significant problem in following our BLP policy, even when editing articles which are not primarily focused on a living or recently deceased person. I believe lifting the current restriction cannot possibly be considered, and instead my BLP sanction should be replaced with something that explicitly bans them from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, which concerns a living or recently deceased person, very broadly construed. I also think the restriction should be more indefinite in nature. I'm going to note, for procedural purposes, that I approve my restriction to be lifted, modified or replaced with something equally or more restrictive, and that the term of that sanction be equal or longer lasting than the time remaining on the existing sanction. Nick (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Nick, Thanks for your input. I'm sorry to hear you feel that way. I am surprised that you think there are otherwise problems with my edits. I think the draft article, turned redirect was in a gray area, not violating the ban, because the article is about a term used in the media. I respect of course the consensus here which weighs heavily against me, obviously. Might I ask that what ever consensus is reached be supported with diffs explaining what is problematic. I will refrain from now on making comments or otherwise participating in this discussion as I think I have made my case. Thanks. --Jabbi (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to decline appeal and modify existing topic ban

I'll take a stab at this with the following language: Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I would propose that Nick's restriction is replaced with something like: Jabbi is indefinitely banned from making (1) any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people; and (2) any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in Wikipedia. Jabbi may not appeal this modified topic ban imposed by the community for 9 months from when it is imposed. I think this will provide more clarity regarding the scope of the restriction and less room for wikilawyering or inadvertent errors on the boundaries. Separately pinging @HighInBC: @Deepfriedokra: @Fram: who have also already commented on the appeal for input on this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The only differences between this proposal and mine are the length (indefinite instead of one year) and the appeal provision. Otherwise, the language is unduly wordy, particularly (1), which does not provide greater clarity.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I read your restriction as permitting edits to Human rights in Belarus#International criticism of human rights in Belarus, so long as the edits do not concern a living person specifically. Mine, particularly (1), explicitly restricts any edits because the article itself contains biographical content. That said, whether that is too stringent is a separate issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Read literally, (1) only prohibits edits concerning BLPs but notes articles containing BLP content unnecessarly. If your intention is to prohibit any edits to any article that contains biographical content, regardless of whether the edit itself concerns a BLP, then your restriction is so broad as to prohibit Jabbi from editing so many articles to be effectively a complete block on Jabbi's ability to edit. A quick example would be all movie articles that contain a cast section. Such a restriction would prevent Jabbi from disambiguating a wikilink.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Due to multiple meanings for "concerns", personally I prefer "is related to" or similar wording. isaacl (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support almost any reasonable restriction, in view of the continuing effort by Jabbi to game the system, including by twisting my words. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support."Jabbi is banned from making any edits anywhere on Wikipedia that concerns a living person or recently deceased person for one year." Starting today. Today's appeal is to be declined. Robert's comment above is noted. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support — Per statements by Fram, Deepfriedokra, Nick, Bbb23, Robert McClenon and HighInBC. I remain unimpressed as to the demeanor of the OP, it is one thing to genuinely appeal for a topic ban to be lifted and a whole other thing to be arrogant about it. You cannot genuinely seek for an appeal and in the same appeal, attempt to intentionally misrepresent the comments of others in order to Favour you, it is very much contradictory to say the least and very much indicative of your inability to comprehend why you were topic banned in the first instance and also goes to show why an inverse of your appeal to be evoked (in my opinion an indefinite ban from BLP's or any biographical articles) but I’m largely satisfied with this proposal. Celestina007 (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support as Jabbi has been skirting around the edges of this topic ban, and I support starting the one year timer from the date this thread is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackattack1597 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's wording, duration 1 year starting when the ban is issued . HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's proposal. One year restart seems a viable alternative. Meters (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I corrected the grammar of my proposed ban language ("concern" instead of "concerns").--Bbb23 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support Bbb23's proposal, as clarified. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support I do not believe Jabbi understands our BLP policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Apparent Misrepresentation

I am not entirely sure what User:Jabbi is claiming that I said in their defense, but I don't think that I said it, and I wasn't intending to be defending them, at least not in the way that they claim. Jabbi writes: 'The term Europe's last dictatorship refers to a country, not a person. You can seek the confirmation of User:Robert McClenon if you want.' I think that they are quoting me in connection with a Delete, in which I said that the article did NOT establish notability for the term. Jabbi also writes: 'I don't see a problem there, neither did User:Robert McClenon at the time.' That isn't true. I did see a problem, which was that Jabbi was creating the same article in both article space and draft space in order to game the system. I didn't take part in the Arbitration Enforcement discussion that resulted in the topic-ban, and I agree that Jabbi wasn't referring to a dictator by name, but I was saying that Jabbi was conducting themselves in a problematic manner. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Ncmvocalist - I am changing nothing in the above statement. It doesn't depend on whether I had previously noted the topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, we now have two subsections you have created as a result of concerns caused by things you have said (or failed to say). While all of us are agreed that Jabbi should stay away from BLPs due to a number of issues, your use of words appear ill-considered. At 17:00, 19 July 2021, as a matter of fact, you said that you saw a problem that "Jabbi was creating the same article in both article space and draft space in order to game the system". At 17:03, 19 July 2021, you again said that Jabbi was continuing his effort to game the system; that is, you implied that he (1) made an effort to game the system previously; and (2) was continuing to do so. At 16:47, 20 July 2021, you said "I acknowledge that User:Jabbi was not trying to game the system." So, were your original accusations of bad faith correct or were those more "mistakes" on your part? At 23:09, 20 July 2021, you said what Jabbi did is "sometimes done to game the system" [emphasis added]. Or are you now saying that the original accusation of bad faith was veiled in the first place? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Just clarifying the above issue as I am directly addressed. The only thing I was trying to say is that you participated in the discussion about the draft article/redirect converted to article knowing I had the BLP ban and did not raise an issue in regards to that. I was not intending to misrepresent you or state anything beyond that. Of course you did state your suspicions about me gaming the system which I did not mention above as I thought it not relevant. I am used to just creating articles from the Icelandic wikipedia where things are less bureaucratic let's say. When I say "'I don't see a problem there,'" I am referring to my conduct in relation to the ban. I was not trying to game the system either, just contribute to the encyclopedia. I put forward objective sources and arguments for it. --Jabbi (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Jabbi writes: "The only thing I was trying to say is that you participated in the discussion about the draft article/redirect converted to article knowing I had the BLP ban and did not raise an issue in regards to that." I had not been aware of the BLP ban, and that is why I did not object to their conduct. If I had been aware at the time of the BLP ban, I would have objected, because it is difficult to discuss a dictatorship without discussing its dictator as an individual. I would have expressed concerns if I had known about the ban, and I will have BLP concerns. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

On May 31 you notify two admins of a dispute involving me and you explicitly state that I have a BLP ban (Here, Here). On June 9 you weigh in on the deletion proposal. I don't expect this to make any material difference to the outcome of my disciplinary proceedings and I don't see a need to discuss this further. Have a nice day. --Jabbi (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I made a mistake. I didn't notice that the same editor was involved both in the hockey dispute and in the AFD of the last dictatorship article. I made a mistake. I didn't notice that it was the same editor in both places. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

If User:Jabbi actually thought that my words meant that I didn't see a problem, then they have a strange idea of what is not seeing a problem, when I said that they were acting like a male bovid in a pottery boutique. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge that User:Jabbi was not trying to game the system. They were trying to contribute to the encyclopedia. However, their judgment of what is a contribution to the encyclopedia cannot be relied on, and they are trying to wikilawyer to avoid listening to the guidance of other editors. The continuation of the topic ban is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: There is some irony in you creating this subsection about "apparent misrepresentation" by Jabbi during this appeal and then yourself apparently misrepresenting that Jabbi tried to game the system, as you now belatedly acknowledge Jabbi didn't run afoul of that Wikipedia guideline. As a matter of fairness, I think you should again return to the comments you made prior to realising that you had goofed up, reflect on if they are still accurate and strike through the words which are withdrawn, even if the remainder of your position has not changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Reconsideration

In response to the request by User:Ncmvocalist that I review my post, since I did make a mistake, the effect is minimal, and I am not sure that anything needs to be stricken or changed. User:Jabbi still misrepresented my view when they said that I didn't think that they had done anything wrong. I said that they were behaving like a male bovid in a pottery boutique. I also said that they were creating two copies of an article, in draft space and in article space, which is never useful and is sometimes done to game the system. Saying that I said that they had done nothing wrong, only because I didn't specifically address the ban, is either a deliberate twisting of my words, or, to assume good faith, a reading of my words that is so biased that it illustrates a gross lack of awareness. I am willing to assume good faith, noting that good faith is necessary but not self-sufficient. The lack of awareness is such that any easing of any restrictions would be a mistake. I think that my conclusion about a dangerous lack of awareness may be essentially what User:Nick is also saying. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This echoes my take on this. I am not sure what Ncmvocalist expects you to redact. An admin editor not remembering every ban by every user at all times is hardly anything to apologies for. None of what you claimed depended on you not knowing they were banned at the moment of the AfD. You have already clarified this. This seems more of a distraction than anything. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

User:HighInBC - I am not an administrator. Does that make any difference? ;- Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I am shocked, somehow I thought you were. I probably thought you were because you are one of the few names I recognize from when I started here 15-16 years ago. No it does not make a difference. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighinBC: I've spelled out the precise issue here. It isn't right. We have all agreed that a more stringent sanction is needed in some form and that there is an obvious lack of understanding how things work here, but there comes a point where we should be accurate too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:, thanks for you input. I want to start by apologising for involving you in this appeal as I also mistakenly assumed you were an admin, you have that air about you. Neither did I intend my appeal to grow arms and legs like it has, so I feel an apology is owed to everyone whose misfortune it is to read this. I do feel however that your statement is incorrect, as I explained above, I said I don't see a problem there, in reply to HighInBC where we are debating my conduct in relation to my BLP topic ban and interpretation of BLP policy. I even qualified it with " at the time" to give you leeway in case you had made a mistake which has turned out to be the case. I could have said something like "I don't see a problem there, and Robert McClenon only accused me of gaming the system." but you know, I could not foresee the chaotic jumble this is turning into. --Jabbi (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

Is it safe to assume that the discussion has concluded and the ban taken an effect from henceforth? Until July 22 2022 ? Could you please quote me the ban here along with the reasoning for it Bbb23? Or do you want to wait to see if there are others that want to participate. I want to state for the record that I understand that BLP policy applies to all spaces, including drafts, and that it applies to all text that describes the lives or actions of living or recently deceased people. Furthermore I want to clarify that it was my mistaken understanding that Nick's ban was limited to biographical articles. I have not ever knowingly violated WP guidelines, and I have acted in good faith. My edit history has focused heavily on Belarus because I have become very interested in Belarus for the past year or so. I think that, because there are sensitive political issues surrounding Belarus, edits there are rightly viewed in skeptical light. I do not have a coi nor am I trying to push a non-neutral angle. Do I understand correctly that in order for the ban to be lifted I still need to appeal or is it automatically lifted on July 23 2022? Thanks --Jabbi (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing has been concluded. At some point, an uninvolved administrator (not me, for example) will determine the consensus and close the discussion. At that point, if a ban is imposed, you will be notified.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I do think this has run its course, it has been several days since an opinion on the ban has been given. Requesting closure please. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:13, 27 July 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.

International Judo Federation

Not sure what's going on here, but an IP has added this International Judo Federation#Controversies. The full Controversies section belongs to it. The question is if this material is worthy of an encyclopedia? Please read everything! I am not going to remove anything because I don't know what action I should take. I feel this should not be on Wikipedia. Regards, Karel .karellian-24 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@.karellian-24: The IP is clearly on a mission but the issue needs to be discussed at Talk:International Judo Federation. It looks like the "Controversies" section was inserted a long time ago and a January 2018 edit removed it, with the IP reverting that removal on 24 July 2021. You might get assistance from a noticeboard such as WP:NPOVN. WP:DUE and WP:COATRACK apply. Try WP:RSN for assistance with whether ref 5 supports the "controversies" idea (it doesn't—the addition is original research). Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, I'm wondering if it's also time to block this range, and this IP. I suppose the semi-protection keeps that stuff out of the article, but they are being plenty disruptive and argumentative. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

There is more analysis and commentary now on Talk:International Judo Federation. I'm leaning more and more towards a block. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I blocked 2603:7000:2143:8500:0:0:0:0/64 but did not find sufficient reason to block the other IP despite their similarity. I left them a warning. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with work on a local file pointing to commons

• I am an admin. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_history_merge#New requests. I obeyed step 1. I then tried to obey step 2, but I could not find the newly-deleted edits of the local file File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png (rather than the commons file that it points to). What has happened? I seem to have run foul of some automatic mechanism that redirects from local graphics-link files to commons graphics files. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

The instructions are:-

“ Please perform a history split of File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png to split the first (2006) revision and merge it with File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg, merging it with the file/history that is there now. The problem here is that the first (2006) revision is actually a jpeg file. Presumably the MediaWiki software back in 2009 didn't check if file type and extension matched as Preslethe was able to overwrite a jpeg file with a PNG. Because of how the MediaWiki scaler works, PNG is not optimal for photos. (they get blurry) On Commons there is File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.jpg, but unfortunately the conversion of the color corrected version from PNG to jpeg was done with a lot of compression (quite visible on a large display or if you zoom in), which is why I uploaded File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg. If I'm not mistaken these are the steps to take:

1. Delete File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png
2. Restore the first revision
3. Try moving it to File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg without leaving a redirect
4. Get an error, check "Yes, delete the page" so you can move the page
5. Restore deleted revisions of File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg
6. Restore revisions that were left at File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.png — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

”

• Anthony Appleyard, that's interesting. On file pages you should be able to add redirect=no like this, I'm not sure if that would have solved your problem. Fastily, I see you copied File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess.jpg to Commons. As the original uncorrected file is in the history of c:File:Bermuda Regiment Corporal's Mess 1992.jpg I think we have everything now? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • • @Alexis Jazz: Thanks, it works. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Anthony Appleyard, I created this user script to automatically get around Commons redirects: User:Alexis Jazz/RedirectCommonsRedirects. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible SPA?

Hi, I was taking a look at the contributions for Chimichangazzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have noticed that it is possibly a single-purpose account. I am not assuming bad faith, but almost every one of their edits have been reverted, a lot of their edits have been WP:POINTY and they may be not here to bulid an encyclopedia. I am not involved in a dispute with this editor or anything like this, and while they are not vandalizing pages or have posted anything for a week or so, I think there is a possibility that this account may be a disruption-only account. If that is the case, then it is possible that it gets blocked indefinitely.

It is possible that they are still relatively new and are not well-versed in Wikipedia's core policies, but I think it is worth taking a look. Aasim (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

A bit stale and I indeed noticed apparent WP:RGW/WP:NOTHERE behavior. They had one block for it, then resumed but stopped just short of being blocked again. Maybe can be left a last chance... —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I just reverted an egregiously defective addition with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Chimichangazzz (talk): Unreliable sources and contrary to editorial instructions. Even with RS, you MUST get a consensus for such an addition. Use the talk page.". AllSides and Townhall are not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

They are back and at the same same old behavior. Numerous attempts at discussion have failed. The temporary block has failed as they only edit every few weeks. I have blocked the account indefinitely with the reason: Disruptive editing, edit warring and POV pushing, refusing to accept consensus against edits. Seems to be a politically motived single purpose account.

I would have considered a DS topic ban from American politics, however this is the only area that they edit.

If another admin can get be confident that they are going to work better within the community they may unblock without further discussion with me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering a complete disregard for consensus, apparent NOTHERE concerns and the renewed edit warring, this was probably the best option. If it was a technical issue, the last block would theoretically have catched their attention... —PaleoNeonate – 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Is Using the UPE Template against policy?

I was going to start an RFC when I remembered that AN is just as effective or rather, an alternative to an RFC I do have a question and for the sake of transparency I do have an active case please see here. I have a question I do need you all to assist me with and would be eternally grateful if I can get a definitive reply from you all who have bestowed great trust on me of which I do not take for granted.

• My question is, is it against policy to leave a UPE tag on an article? I was advised off wiki by a functionary and sysop that when I leave a UPE warning I should also initiate a dialogue with the editor in question and explain to them why i think they are engaging in UPE, but an editor by the name of Kaizenify in that thread told me it wasn’t proper and this got me confused as the {{Upe}} is quite self explanatory. The OP classified me leaving a UPE template as making false allegations and I really do not see how leaving a UPE template is a “false accusation” . I have come here for clarifications because if indeed it’s against policy to UPE template an article effective immediately i wouldn't do that but if not I would like a feedback from you all on what you think. Celestina007 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The template exists for a reason. There was a proposal to delete this template, but it failed. While it is technically not mandatory to start a dialogue with the editor(s) in question, I'd certainly consider it a best practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Orangemike, Mike, thank you for your response, I have placed UPE templates on dubious looking articles, which more often than not ended up as actually being UPE indeed but in the aforementioned thread it’s used as “evidence” against me, largely the narrative there is that me tagging articles as UPE is “making false UPE allegations” against editors even when the UPE template is precisely worded and straightforward. Celestina007 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - @Celestina007:, leaving a UPE template without a strong evidence of UPE by the editor is a false accusation. Promotional tone of articles are not enough evidence of UPE. WP:COI and WP:UPE are two different things. Apparently you seem to be assuming that users who have COI are UPE.

If a user writes about their university professor or about their uncle who is a lawmaker, that person would be violating our policy on WP:COI regardless of the tone of the article (promotional or not). In most cases, there is no way we are going to proof their connection with the subject unless there are off-wiki evidences. Tagging the page with the WP:COI template without evidences that connects them together is inappropriate and against policy let alone tagging with UPE. If there are offline evidences, you could advice the user to refrain from making further edits on the page. If they continue, you could give them a final warning and this could be followed by a WP:NOTHERE block if they continue. If the user is the sole contributor to that page and engaging in sockpuppetry after the block, the page may now be tagged with the WP:COI template. Police do not kill a suspect before taking them before judges. It's a crime. For WP:UPE, not all editors who have WP:COI are undisclosed paid editors and tagging them as such is inappropriate and may be considered harassment. Before you use that template on articles, you do have to be sure that they have been paid for their edits on the article. The evidences must be strong and significant such as access to the financial or transaction statements. It's almost impossible to proof that a user is UPE and that's why the tag should rarely be used. When you tag an article written by an established editor or new editor as UPE, you are directly or indirectly accusing them of undisclosed paid editing. In this case, you must have a significant evidence to proof that they have been paid or likely to have been paid based on the evidence you have gathered (not just the article promotional tone). The evidence must go beyond the article's promotional tone. Allegation or accusation of UPE is a very serious one at least here on the English Wikipedia and a strong evidence must be presented to back up your claim. The {{UPE}} template says "Add this tag to articles for which there appears to be a significant contribution by an undisclosed paid editor. " This is the condition under which the tag should be used. From that clause, it means that you must have established that the user is an "undisclosed paid editor". That's almost impossible to establish without off-wiki evidences. So, the tag should rarely be used. Kaizenify (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kaizenify, umm calm down, I’m trying to establish a fact. In any case I think the template is worded precisely. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kaizenify not quite, did you read the documentation? You are literally saying the inverse of what the template states. Celestina007 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The tag does not say the contribution is actually proven to be from a UPE. The tag says it is "for articles where there appears to be a significant contibution be a UPE." "appears to be" is a fairly loose criterion. Perhaps there could be a separate tag for " articles where there definitely has been a significant contibution by a proven UPE." In more usual terms, I think "appears to be" is not even equivalent to "preponderance of the evidence" but an even lower standard, perhaps "reasonable suspicion". It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader. (FWIW, since I do specialize the university professors, most articles with coi are indeed UPE by the labs or university's PR staff, which is certainly UPE; there are indeed some by enthusiastic students, but it is generally possible to tell them apart; this in;t the place to give the distinguishing signs, but I can expand on this elsewhere. The more troublesome cases is when someone honestly writes and article, but copies the style of promotional editors, thinking that this is what we want--some have in fact said exactly that when challenged. That's the reason for using the very weaj wowwrding "appears to be". We cannot necessarily determine someone's motives, but we can see what they write. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

In regard to situations where there there has been definite paid editing, we have Template:Paid contributions. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

DGG says what is sometimes easily forgotten, perhaps: "It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader." And I agree with his analysis of who writes up professor's articles, though I will add that in my experiences it's frequently the PR people who write up the administrators, rather than the professors. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies and DGG: my comments here are probably better held at Talk:BLP or VPP or something but since it came up here I'll mention this. The complaint/s which lead to this seem to be mostly related to unfairness against the editors involved I think. Frankly I'm not so concerned about them since anyone who can work out who was involved would hopefully be able to understand that the template is an alert not an accusation. But I've had concerns about this from a BLP standpoint for a while which I was reminded of recently due to this BLPN query. While I should have made this clearer in my response, (I was thinking someone else might respond), I do have great sympathy for the subject there. While they didn't comment why they wanted the tags removed, it's easy to imagine they feel the tags reflects poorly on them whenever people see the article.

Whatever we may intend by and understand of the templates, the reader may see things differently. While I've seen people argue even generic cleanup tags are harmful, IMO this is likely a minor thing since realistically I can't imagine many readers think that negatively of a subject just because the article has generic cleanup tags. Other than perhaps assuming it's unimportant because no one bothered to fix it. However COI and paid editing tags are different since I wouldn't be surprised if readers do interpret them as reflecting poorly on the subject thinking they themselves wrote an article or worse they paid someone to do it for them, effectively a tag of shame.

In reality, I expected, and your experiences seems to affirm, that there's a fair chance many of the subjects had little to do with what lead to the tags, they may not have even been aware of the attempt to make an article on them. I suspect it isn't just in academia either, I wouldn't be surprised if similar stuff happens even for CEOs and the like. Even where the person is technically in charge of the people involved, it still seems a bit harsh to blame them for it without knowing a lot more about what went on. (And so while I think it's a terrible attitude from a BLP standpoint, if any editor does feel "serves them right" for having something seen as a tag of shame on the article for years, an important reminder you might be punishing someone who may have little to do with it.)

But on the flipside, these articles will often be a problem that needs to be checked and until we do so, we probably should alert readers of the fact. And as a volunteer projection I think it's understandable there are often few takers to cleanup an article which only exists because someone did something they shouldn't have. So I don't support removing these without someone bothering to check who feels confident in removing them, rather than just removing them because they've been there a long time as I believe someone advocated when this came up in a prior discussion).

I suspect deletion is also likely to be controversial, especially since some of these may have had a fair amount of editing from others before the COI as detected. I wonder if the best solution may be to draftify any BLP which has had the tags for maybe 1 year or more. Perhaps this will end up being a back door to deletion if 10 years down the track, someone complains that we have an ever expanding list of drafts from likely paid editors which no one is getting to, but it might still be better than leaving these as is IMO given the potential harm to BLPs from having these tags for many years. (The case which reminded me of it has had them for 3 years and 9 months.)

Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Obviously not, since we use it all the time. The recent, lengthy TfD discussion affirmed that {{UPE}} is useful, has broad community consensus behind it, and that it functions as a maintenance tag. In other words, it exists primarily to indicate a problem with an article, not with the conduct of its contributors. As such I can't see any reason why you should feel obligated to discuss it with the paid editor. The anonymous functionary sounds like they're making policy up as they go along. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no point in draftifying if there is nobody around who is likely to improve the article. Usual practice is not to draftify if the user is no longer around, especially if it's more than a year old. It inevitably leads to deletion without discussion unless someone like me decides to improve it a little at the 6 month mark and put it back in mainspace, but whoever draftified it could save a good deal of work for the reviewers if they did it themselves. It's just as bad as deleting it automatically, except it has an even higher overhead. Having coi does not mean an article is necessarily improper. At the very least anyone who intends to draftify or delete an article needs to consider whether the coi tag is even justified, and then whether the effect of it on the article is significant. The only exception the community has ever accepted is completely unsourced BLP--and even they get adequate special exposure a tProd, much more than individual drafts get. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• I Chose AN as opposed to RFC as both are effective. I understand perfectly how the {{UPE}} works, The documentation is worded fairly, and very precise and in no way translates nor necessarily means that the article creator is actually engaged in UPE infact the tag is so fairly worded that it requires a discussion and I believe if the editor replies with a “No i don’t/did not receive nor intend to receive financial rewards” should suffice enough for the editor who put the tag there to remove it and if unsatisfied by the response take the article and the relevant diffs to COIN or if there’s a long-standing pattern of possible UPE from the same editor, the ANI should be the place to visit. I know it isn’t against policy, neither does it translate to “unfounded accusations” especially if the rationale for putting it there is plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for administrator attention for article Aliza Kelly

I'm nominating the request for deletion page for the article Aliza Kelly for Administration attention WP:RAA and/or a conduct dispute WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE based on the grounds of Civility WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Users nearlyevil665 and User:Phil_Bridger may not be acting in good faith or objectivity due to WP:IDL; discourse and behavior may be steered by their personal bias--which would require a neutral third party in this discussion to ever reach consensus. Attempts for mediation and/or a conduct dispute are to try to reach a consensus vote to avoid WP:Harrassment and Wikihounding for all parties involved in this discussion. Heycambry (talk)

Please note that Heycambry is paid by Aliza Kelly to edit Wikipedia. A review of WP:Articles for deletion/Aliza Kelly shows numerous single-purpose accounts have participated in the discussion. IMO, it is not outside the scope of reasonability that the two named users were baited into incivility by the barrage of SPAs. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I can certainly only speak for myself but I'm confident that a quick review of the AfD will show that I have kept my cool and never resorted to anything that could be even remotely construed WP:IDL. I even spent a considerable amount of time on a source assessment table (for 23 articles mind you) to provide more clarity into the nomination but that seemed to only add fire into an apparent barrage of SPAs. nearlyevil665 15:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Heycambry: The only thing Phil Bridger seems to have done is to leave a brief !vote to delete, then get mildly annoyed when someone made a false accusation. There seem to be a lot of replies from nearlyevil665 which is not necessarily a good sign but I didn't look at the comments. Especially since User:Magdalamar seems to be worse in terms of how much space they're taking in the AFD but for some reason you didn't bring them up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

BTW, Heycambry while you may technically comply with the TOU with the disclosure on your userpage, you really should disclosure here when you make a complaint that it relates to your paid edits. By bringing this here you're asking for the views of uninvolved parties who are likely to be unaware. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Heycambry: Could you show specific diffs of Phil Bridger's and nearlyevil's behaviour that you'd consider uncivil? I've read all of their replies and they seemed fine. If anything, it's some of the other participants who seem to be uncivil, including casting aspersions about nearlyevil. Isabelle ^🔔 16:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As soon as I can go grab my phone to log in with my primary account, that AfD is going to get semi'd. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I got your back. Took care of it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This is outrageous. Heycambry is a paid editor engaged in an overt promotional campaign in support of an upcoming pseudoscience book written by an author of the type that Jimmy Wales famously called the lunatic charlatans. Where did all these new SPAs come from? It seems very likely that they were recruited by Heycambry, which is unacceptable behavior. Experienced editors need to check out this AfD. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they were directly recruited by Heycambry in some way, maybe there's some kind of twit tweet to the effect of "look at Wikipedia trying to suppress The Truth(tm)!", maybe they're all the same person, maybe it really is just coincidence and a bunch of people just happened to discover this and just happened to create accounts. There are lots of possible explanations, and we'll probably never know which one it is. I will say this: Heycambry, I can't say for certain whether you are in any way related to all of these new accounts showing up at the AfD. If you are, however, it would be a violation of multiple rules and you should stop doing whatever is causing those editors to show up. In particular, asking people to show up to an AfD to vote in a particular direction is textbook meatpuppetry, a rule which applies to everyone. Further, if you (as a paid editor) asked someone to make edits on behalf of you to further your paid editing, that is evasion of scrutiny and undisclosed paid editing (since they are making edits on behalf of a paid editor without acknowledging the relationship). ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

changes to Oversight team

In accordance with the Committee's standing procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of ST47 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Committee extends its appreciation for ST47's service as an Oversighter.

Katie^talk 19:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § changes to Oversight team

Zeke Essiestudy ban appeal

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

---

Ezekiel53746 (talk · contribs) is appealing their three strikes community ban, seeking permission to continue editing from their most recent (and most productive) account: Zeke_Essiestudy (talk · contribs). The text of the appeal is copied here by request:

So for those that remember I used to cause a lot of disruption during 2009-2014, which I addressed here. I don't want to be that kind of a person anymore, I haven't wanted to for a long time, hence why I wanted to start afresh with Zeke Essiestudy. And, I was genuinely enjoying my time on that account. Being actually productive... Far more than I would've enjoyed keeping vandalizing or disrupting Wikipedia. Unfortunately, after I confessed to the Administrator's noticeboard out of guilt, that account was immediately hardblocked. Now it's almost been three years since I last edited this place. I still want to come back, I don't want to be known as a "disruptive sockmaster" forever. I do not intend to continue any of the childish behavior that got me blocked so many times, I'm too old for that.

I will say, I'd prefer to keep editing as Zeke Essiestudy, but if I can only be unblocked on this account, that's fine. Ezekiel! ^{Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'.} 23:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Zeke's global lock was already successfully appealed per this 2019 request, and the checkuser tool shows no evidence of any recent sockpuppetry. Zeke has provided details of their previous accounts on their talk page.

Also, the 2018 confession referred to above can be found here, and is worth reading as part of this appeal. – bradv^🍁 13:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unblock - Despite the fact that they were (to be perfectly blunt) an inordinate pest between 2009-2014; the 2018 statement and unblock request demonstrate a maturity, insight, and reflection which is pretty unique. I'd support an unblock of whichever account they'd prefer (with an obvious single-account restriction) and I wish them the best of luck. As a sidenote, it's pretty amazing what happens once the frontal lobes develop a bit... and if nothing else; re-blocks are cheap. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Unblock, as a large amount of time has passed and this user appears to have matured. If this isn't enough of a wait to appeal, I don't know what is.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that I support allowing whichever account Zeke wants to be unblocked to be unblocked, with a one account restriction. Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose We don't need a person who "cause a lot of disruption" for 6 years, then switches to a new account and then creates an impression "look I fooled all of you now stop blocking me". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Ping TonyBallioni since he made the block.[24] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a rather harsh way to describe a confession. – bradv^🍁 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

He does seem to have grown up — literally, if his statements about his initial age are to be believed. DS (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• This is a case of an editor who could have continued to get away with socking had they chosen to do so. And then when they got blocked post their confession, CU indicates they didn't then take up socking again, as would likely have been a strong incentive (after all, they managed to get away with it before). Their confession is, emotionally-speaking, all over the place. But smugness is not one of the things I get from it. The initial confession coupled with the expanded text (see talk page) below their appeal instead screams to me that they want the relief of being not having to hide anything. I struggle to see how a continuation could reasonably be construed as preventative, not punitive, and support unblock Nosebagbear (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock The disruption was all a long time ago when they were apparently a child, and enough time has passed to give them another chance. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Second Chance (similar to what I was given when I was unbanned). Lavalizard101 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support unblock Unless someone provides a link to truly egregious behavior I think we can forget about some disruptive editing from 2011 and sock puppetry that has ostensibly ended in 2018. This would be with the understanding of a single account, no logged out editing, and a low tolerance for further disruption. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Note that this user has been a prolific sockpuppeteer in the past, not just some disruption, but I still think it's far enough in the past to unblock. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive#Report_date_March_20_2009,_06:28_(UTC)Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:26, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock Unblocks are cheap and can be easily reimposed. Paul August ☎ 00:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Nosebagbear. It's been long enough and they seem to want to contribute productively. Worth a shot. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - our younger editors do mature over time. Unblock with a single account restriction is a reasonable proposition. Plenty of banhammers about should they be needed. Mjroots (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'll go ahead and unblock (the Zeke Essiestudy account). Drmies (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Please close this 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.

---

• Talk:Maryse Ouellet#Requested move 5 July 2021

I relisted it on 21 July but nobody joined the discussion. So please summarize and close it. Wario-Man ^talk 07:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Closed by Jack Frost. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 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.

Appealing topic ban for Raymond3023

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

---

I was topic banned indefinitely per this ARE discussion. The topic ban concerned all edits and pages related to the conflict between India and Pakistan. I am appealing the topic ban since 3 years and 2 months have elapsed and I am completely confident that I can contribute constructively here.

Since the topic ban, I have made hundreds of edits in these years, including the creation of Space industry of India which was promoted to DYK.[25] Furthermore, I haven't engaged in any behavior for which I had been sanctioned, namely battleground mentality.

In order to avoid repeating the issue from happening again, I have learned to assume good faith as much as possible and only raise the issue when it is necessary and ensure not to violate any policies. This is mainly because enough time has passed and I am evidently more aware of the policies and expectations here.

I am also noting that I never violated the topic ban or had any other sanction since. If the topic ban has been removed, I will still continue to contribute in such a productive manner. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has over 6.3 million articles, of which I would hazard more than 99% have nothing to do with the conflict between India and Pakistan. Why is that an area in which you feel the need to edit? BD2412 T 05:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • It is one of my most favorite topic areas and I find a number of articles to be missing information. I would like to start working on geographic articles related to the area for starters. For a name, Wagah lacks details about 2014 Wagah border suicide attack and in turn, the suicide attack article has not been updated for years given it lacks any details about the convictions happened last year. One by one, I will be updating some of these and others. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• That AE is really long and involves a lot of participants, so I'm not going to sift through it. The enforcing admin (GoldenRing) seems to be retired now, as well as some others in the discussion (like NeilN). @Bishonen and Vanamonde93: seem to be some active admins who might be familiar with those events. I found this declined (individual) AE appeal, and this declined (mass) ARCA. Otherwise, the appeal above reads reasonably, and it has been 3 years. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support lifting tban. 3 years is a long time and I don't see any evidence they've been disruptive during that time (they haven't edited much at all). They sound sincere. The worst that could happen is they go back to the behavior which got them tbanned in the first place but we'll figure that out pretty quick and can deal with it then. The best that could happen is we gain a productive editor in a topic area known for conflict. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty much for the same reasons mentioned by RoySmith. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support - There hasn't been any complaint against this editor in 3 years other than an AE report filed months ago by a later indefinitely blocked user and it was declined as frivolous by El C.[26] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support A long time since the ban was put in place and I have not seen anyone present evidence of disruption since it has been in place. They have worked on the topic of India specifically and no trouble. I say we try and see what happens. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support A long time has passed and the editor has been productive since. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I find their response to my query satisfactory, and the arguments of other supporting editors/admins persuasive. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I'm a bit wary but will support this. Wary, because though three years have gone by, the editor hasn't edited a whole lot in those three years [27] and much of that, abbreviated, editing appears to be cosmetic. The odds are that content relating to the interaction between India and Pakistan is their sole motivation for being on Wikipedia. But, I'll support this because a one area focus is not necessarily a bad thing and everyone deserves a second shot.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• My view as an uninvolved editor is already summed up by RegentsPark above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As there is a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors (and administrators) here to overturn this sanction, could an uninvolved administrator close this discussion, formally notify Raymond3023 of this outcome and update the enforcement log here please? Thanks in advance, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 3 years and no red flags. I think he's learned his lesson. Buffs (talk) 03:04, 29 July 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:Blacknclick Paid work

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:Blacknclick has recently created a paid article, Rocket Science (production company) without disclosing that they are getting paid. Job was posted on Upwork.

Upwork Job Link: Wiki Page Creation - Rocket Science

Please review all of their work and let them know this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks. 86.140.156.94 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, review User:Mydreamsparrow who reviewed this article immediately. Seems a WP:MEATPUPPET case. 82.23.80.67 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Both accounts indeffed as socks, see here. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 09:57, 29 July 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.

Delete without AFD

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 created an article named Monthly Al Kawsar. It was deleted without any AFD discussion.I think, It was wrong. Please review this. - Owais ^Talk 14:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there are a few legitimate reasons for deletion on sight, known as criteria for speedy deletion. This page was deleted as spam, which is one of these criteria (G11). 93.172.226.66 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

yes, I know. But it was not a spam. I created 180 articles on bn wiki and 16 on en. - Owais ^Talk 15:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The first place for you to ask would be of the deleting administrator, at User talk:Materialscientist. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have undeleted the article so that another admin would have a look. Maybe not G11, but A7 (notability) would be a better reason. Materialscientist (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

A printed magazine would not be subject to A7. 93.172.226.66 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 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.

My page creation attempts are blocked against a title எண்ணியம்

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 title I created is general, not pointing to any person. It is a topic on materialism. Materialism is a philosophy. Promote free thinking and freedom of expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvvisweswraran (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. Give it an English title. And try creating the page in your sandbox or in draft space first. Main space page creation attempts such as yours look like vandalism. Create it in a safer space and preferably submit it for review via WP:AFC. Be aware that if you are trying to "promote" anything, your article will be deleted anyway. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@Hvvisweswraran: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not promote anything. And Wikipedia is not a place to freely express oneself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It's possible the editor is describing what they think materialism is rather than saying they want to promote that philosophy? We do already have an article at Materialism. —valereee (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no deleted contribs from this editor and do not find a deleted page by that title. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

If your query relates to an edit on the Tamil Wikipedia then you need to ask there. This is the English Wikipedia, which has no more power over other language editions than they do over us. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 24 July 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.

Siddharth University

There is a long history of copyright violations at the Siddharth University article with text being copied from the university website, possibly by students or university employees. It recently came off a one-year stretch of semi-protection and three weeks later, more of the same. I have revision deleted the edits and semi-protected the page indefinitely; if anybody thinks indefinite protection is too much (I rarely semi an article for copyright violations), feel free to adjust the length. If there is a Commons admin lurking, perhaps they will take a look at these two images[28][29], which may have been downloaded from the website. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

SPI about to go stale

Resolved

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaddai Wright is about to go stale in less than two days. Please investigate before that happens. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, I've endorsed a CU check, watch that space. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Zzuuzz deserves a bonus check. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd sign off on that. Double pay this month! ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You guys are just too generous. I'm going to donate 50% of my bonus to some charity which will get more images randomly added to Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You should go ahead and donate 1000% of your bonus to them, in exchange for them offering a special prize for not adding any images to the English Wikipedia.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Lifting topic ban of Junior Jumper

Hello everyone, I was topic banned from editing Indian poltics about 6½ months ago by Bishonen. Now, as I have completed my 6 months of the ban, as per community rules I want to appeal for the revocation of the ban. I have tried my best to abide by the rules of the ban in the last 6½ months. Thank you.--Junior Jumper (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Junior Jumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) What is the nature of your topic ban? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Here it is-- Conditional to unblock, Junior Jumper has agreed to a topic ban from Indian politics. They may however add parliamentary diagrams to articles. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Do you understand that you violated your topic ban just 5 days ago i.e. your one edit before this appeal? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• The proximate cause of the topic ban seems to have been some light edit warring at Sangh Parivar, where Junior Jumper twice changed "militant group" to "youth group" in the description of an organization: [30], and 10 hours later, [31]. JJ's user talk page response to Doug Weller's original revert was definitely far from ideal. The literal "how dare you?" on his talk page, aimed at the ignorant "foreigner" clearly showed that JJ didn't really get how our neutrality policies worked in that context. I am also fully aware that this topic area has long been a contentious one.
  That said, was there more history here that's not immediately obvious? An indefinite block that rolled into a six-month-minimum topic ban feels...abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day. Unless there's something else, I'd support lifting the topic ban; it looks like JJ has been at least as productive since the ban was imposed as he was before. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• Whilst JJ did add an image, I didn't see that there was edit warring, incivility, white washing, tendentiousness, or POV pushing. Is there any indication of any of those things, perchance? in my Tom Ellis (actor) voice --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting. The issue of agenda-driven POV-pushing editing is significant in this topic area; if it isn't nipped in the bud early, just as Bishonen and Dougweller have done here, the issues pile up over a prolonged period. I would prefer for the restrictions to remain until Junior Jumper can at least clearly demonstrate that he makes substantial edits, consistent with NPOV, in areas he is not banned from. If he cannot stay committed to the topic ban, let alone his agreement not to edit the article again about a group he admits he is a member of, I do not have faith we can rely on his assertions that he will edit in this area appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bishonen: @Dougweller: Not sure if either of you were notified, but what are your views? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• OMG, a TenOfAllTrades sighting! El_C 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  This is not the editor you're looking for... * waves hand * (But seriously, aside from the one article revert and subsequent ugly back-and-forth on his user talk on 29/30 December, have there been any issues with JJ's conduct?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  KOMPAKTOR DEFEATED. El_C 16:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• I quickly skimmed Junior Jumper's contributions since the topic ban (1 January 2021). The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures, however all I can see are adjustments to images. Most of that activity appears to be within the topic of Indian politics, as agreed. Without better reason, I do not support lifting a topic ban in such a contentious area which already has enough enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Abhishek0831996: I have edited the page Banwari Lal Joshi but it is not the page of Indian politician. It is the page of former IPS BL Joshi. I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.--Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi says: "Banwari Lal Joshi (27 March 1936 – 22 December 2017)[1] was an Indian political figure..." and right here you had to stop instead of thinking to falsify his career after violating the topic ban. He is mainly known for being a governor, and a governor in India is a political post. With this edit you have already violated your topic ban from Indian politics. What you are doing is called WP:GAMING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • ” I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.” I think this is an absurd claim about the article that inspires very little confidence for me that this editor either understands the issue with their problematic past - and now seemingly ongoing behaviour, or shows they’re intentionally willing to bend their understanding of the rules using implausible reasons to justify their POV pushing. It’s a no from me. Mkdw ^talk 11:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I changed the lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi just now, from "political figure" to "civil servant and government official," which I think is more accurate. I wouldn't have phrased this response the way JJ phrased it, but I don't think it's an absurd claim that BLJ was not a politician. Levivich 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The absurd claim is the apparent claim that the topic ban does not cover the position of a governor. Whether BLJ was a politician or not is being only debated by the OP instead of accepting the topic ban violation. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • To use an analogy: Louis Susman was US ambassador to the UK but he's not a politician. Would someone who is TBANed from America Politics be prohibited from adding or changing the picture in Louis Susman's article? I don't think so, or if that's a TBAN violation, it's a pretty peripheral and minor one. Just because a person received a political appointment at the end of their career doesn't mean every part of their biography is related to politics (nor does it make them a politician). Levivich 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• I blocked Junior Jumper for persistent tendentious editing, a block that was after discussion converted to a topic ban. They had changed the well-sourced description of Bajrang Dal as a "religious militant group" to "religious youth group" — which was hardly heinous in itself — but the edit summary was "How dare they said Bajrang Dal 'militant'. Bajrang Dal is not a terrorist group. They had sacrificed a lot for country's welfare".[32] Doug Weller reverted stating "It's described this way in its own article, this should match", and JJ reverted back without comment, the way we revert vandalism. This discussion followed on JJ's talk, and I blocked indefinitely. I see TenOfAllTrades considers my action "abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day"; I can only say I don't agree. Indeed it happened in one day, but IMO the edits are beyond iffy and the talkpage comments not merely ill-considered but militantly nationalist and indicative of a deep problem: "don't give me the link of BBC news. They have no credibility in our India. They are treated like bastards in our country", "How dare you to call Bajrang Dal a militant organisation? Are you Indian to decide so?", etc. I'm not going to argue about this; I encourage others to make up their own minds. I agree with Abhishek0831996 above that JJ's argument about editing Banwari Lal Joshi (Governor of Uttar Pradesh) is gaming their ban; on the other hand, the edit was nothing much, merely adding an image. A bigger problem is that JJ has edited very little during their ban; basically merely adding parliamentary diagrams and changing/adjusting images. These diagrams are useful, for sure, and are an explicit exemption from their ban. But there are no content edits that I can see. As Johnuniq says, "The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures". I did not leave JJ to figure this out; I explicitly advised them to edit other areas and/or other projects, as "it's important to be able to show in an appeal that you have been editing constructively".[33] JJ's appeal above is very bald, with no attempt to show the things they were told they need to show. As the banning admin, I won't put an "oppose" on this, but I'm a bit dubious. Bishonen | tålk 08:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC).

• In response to the comments asserting that JJ has edited 'very little' since his ban, JJ's editing prior to his topic ban was also predominantly uncontroversial housekeeping work of exactly the same sort as he's been doing since his topic ban. His editing has, if anything, been at a faster clip than before his ban--he's made about as many edits in the first six months of 2021 as he did in all of 2020. Admins reviewing his contributions should also note that he has a substantial number of deleted contributions related to image maintenance work; indeed, those contributions outnumber his undeleted edits this year.
  To be clear, I absolutely agree that JJ's attitude required adjustment—but I also see enough 'sweat equity' and consistent beneficial behaviour to warrant access to some WP:ROPE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• TOAT's argument that JJ has been editing productively is reasonable. I also understand why JJ might have though Joshi was (just barely) outside their ban, but I'm not impressed with I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.. On balance, I'm for giving them enough ROPE, but JJ, adjusting your attitude includes knowing when to edit yourself. You could have just left that sentence out of your reply. You could have written instead "PS officers are not politicians." Instead, in your own ban appeal at AN, you impugned the competence of someone opposing the appeal. Do you see how that's counterproductive? —valereee (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: I am not impinging him. I am only clearing his facts with regards. The fact is that the "police officers are not politicians even if they are appointed as governors". They should be considered as politicians if they join any political party. We can take the example of K Annamalai for it. He joined BJP in August 2020 thats why he is a politician. But BL Joshi never joined any political party so he was a police officer only in his entire life. This prove that I haven't violated the conditions of topic ban. And I apologize for rude words in the previous comment. I will try to balance my language from next time.--Junior Jumper (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Who said that Banwari Lal Joshi was a politician? They only said that you violated your topic ban by editing the subject's page. There are many subjects strongly associated with Indian politics such as Umar Khalid, Ravish Kumar, Arnab Goswami, Mohan Bhagwat but these individuals haven't joined a political party. Your claim that a subject has nothing to do with Indian politics if they never "joined any political party" won't convince anybody because it is simply wrong. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Raymond3023: They have clearly said that I have violated the policy by editing the page. It clearly implies that they are saying that I have edited a politician's page because this is the only thing that I can do to break my unblock policy. It is clear from his view that they are confused regarding the difference difference between an IPS officer and a politician. So, please critically think about their comments and my replies. --Junior Jumper (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I'd support per WP:ROPE. I don't think Bish's block+unblock-with-TBAN was abrupt. The comments on the "one bad day" were really bad; a block was justified, and unblocking with a TBAN condition was, IMO, the right way to move forward. That said, it was just one bad day. Their editing during the TBAN has been productive from what I can tell, and it was the same type of editing as before the TBAN (images). I don't agree with requiring an editor who edits images to do some other kind of editing (like writing prose) in order to have a TBAN lifted. We don't want editors editing outside of their areas of comfort/expertise/interest just to get a TBAN lifted, nor is it a fair requirement; after all, it's not about jumping through hoops, it's about the community being reasonably assured that an editor can edit without needing a sanction to prevent disruption. If an editor mostly adjusts images before the TBAN, then it's fine if that's what they do during their TBAN. In fact, if an editor normally makes image edits, non-image-edits don't really help us determine how they would behave during their normal editing. (The reverse is true, too: if an editor mostly edits prose, having them upload images during a TBAN doesn't tell us how they'll behave when returning to "normal" editing.) The BLJ image is arguably a TBAN violation ("broadly construed" after all) but a pretty minor/peripheral/harmless one. Six months of productive editing is long enough; let's give them a second chance (bearing in mind that a third chance may not happen if there is a second bad day like the "one bad day" sixmonths ago). Levivich 15:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Hey, everybody see which type of language Abhishek0831996 is using. Don't put words in the mouth of others., is this the way to talk somebody? Many of you are saying that I have used rude language. Now what would you say to Abhishek0831996? Can't he speak politely to me?--Junior Jumper (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Junior Jumper, maybe it's because I read that in isolation, but I don't understand. What's impolite about it? I mean, criticism is allowed. El_C 18:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

JJ, I agree with EI C. Opposition is an expected part of a ban appeal. There's nothing uncivil about telling someone not to misstate something someone else has said, if you think that's what they've done. I understand this is a stressful process for you, but your best bet is to simply not engage with opposers except to correct actual factual errors or describe how you've tried to address their concerns. Criticizing their input won't help you. —valereee (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Valereee:, @El C: Okay 😓--Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• The tone and content of JJ’s replies here leaving me wondering if they are a person we want to let loose in an already combative topic area. The whatsboutism is a bad sign. — AdamF in MO (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting. I started out in favor and was willing to overlook the picture "slip". I'm afraid JJ has persuaded me to not lift the ban. Just not ready yet. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
• @Abhishek0831996: If I was topic banned from editing Indian politics only not politicians then why are you saying that I have violated the T&C of topic ban by editing the page of BL Joshi?

You have said "Do you understand that you violated your topic ban just 5 days ago i.e. your one edit before this appeal?" in your first comment. --Junior Jumper (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

JJ, while I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, this response suggests that you are not prepared to engage constructively in this area at this time. Arguing that "politicians" are somehow not within the topic of "politics" is...unsupportable. I oppose this request at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• @TenOfAllTrades: Thanks for your support but I am just quoting the comment by Abhishek0831996 that Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it. Please read his first comment.--Junior Jumper (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Junior Jumper your topic ban concerns Indian politics. The edit you made on Banwari Lal Joshi, breached your topic ban because that subject is significantly related to Indian politics. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Abhishek0831996: Then why were you saying that Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it.?--17:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junior Jumper (talk • contribs)

  @Junior Jumper: maybe this is partly a problem of English language ability, but I think you're letting your apparent disagreement with Abhishek0831996 harm your ability to contribute productively on your appeal and thereby harm your chances. You are banned from Indian politics. This means you are banned from articles on any Indian politicians. But you are also banned from articles and parts of articles which deal with Indian politics even if the subject is not an Indian politician. Therefore you cannot claim that if a subject is not an Indian politician, your editing was clearly fine. Which seems to be what you tried to say here "It clearly implies that they are saying that I have edited a politician's page because this is the only thing that I can do to break my unblock policy. It is clear from his view that they are confused regarding the difference difference between an IPS officer and a politician." Note I make no comment on whether your edits to Banwari Lal Joshi violated your topic ban as I did not evaluate the edits myself, simply your defence that the person was not a politician and therefore your edits are fine is questionable and it was entirely reasonable for User:Abhishek0831996 to point this out. To give an example from the US with a nod to User:Levivich's comment above, I think anyone with a post 1992 US politics topic ban needs to be very careful and frankly just not touch the articles of James Comey and Brett Kavanaugh even though neither are politicians. Frankly even Stormy Daniels would be a minefield. Note that if you did not understand a ban from Indian politics would cover pretty much any edit to the article of an Indian politician as well as edits to article that weren't directly about politics but were related to Indian politics in some way, this is why people are opposing lifting your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban at this point. Users requesting topic bans be lifted should be doing their utmost to show that they can interact with people they disagree with collaboratively; instead, JJ's approach in this very thread has been hostile, even combative. I agree with others that an article about an Indian state governor is clearly within the scope of the ban. Our article on politics defines it as the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. - civil servants, government officials and state governors all fall within the scope of a ban from politics, even if they are not themselves politicians who seek elected office. I would suggest declining this appeal, with a statement reiterating the scope of their ban; I suggest that JJ work on editing collaboratively in completely different areas, and appeal again in not less than six months. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Question on Whether A Sockpuppet Investigation is Valid and If it Should Be Lifted

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 to know from the administrator's point of view whether a sockpuppet investigation is deemed legal in my case. It all began in a Talk Page conversation because of edit warring. I accidentally logged into a wrong account and reverted an edit that was removed from another person. I realized my mistake and I stated in the Talk Page the first sentence which was that person who reverted the edit was me. I did not revert the edit to create a false impression or create sockpuppeting. I clearly stated I logged into the wrong account. I stated the principles of WP:SOCKLEGIT on the Talk Page before proceeding with the Talk. From then on I re logged into my real account and started the discussion. I haven't logged into the other account ever again. All the edit reverts and talks were from my real account and not the accidentally logged into account. Now per Wikipedia policy a person can create multiple accounts as long as they do not violate sockpuppet policies. That is why I have multiple accounts. Now the two accounts I showed were created just a few hours apart from each other a long time ago. My question to an administrator is does accounts created just hours apart from each other that never engaged in sockpuppetting considered a violation of sockpuppeting? Stillwaters347 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this a third account? As this is its only edit. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes this is the third account I just created because of WP:OUTING. If the situation is acutally not in accordance with Wikipedia policiy I will reveal who the user is. I forgot one thing before. I promise I did not resort to any vote stacking, creating false impressions or any of the illegal activity that is condoned by Wikiepdia. However I find myself in a position where my reputation can be ruinied soon all because I acknowledged the two accounts are my own but were created a few hours apart of each other a long time ago. Stillwaters347 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, my reputation is already ruined. Checkuser listed all my accounts and history... I feel embarrassed in a way but I just have to bear this burden now for the rest of my life. Stillwaters347 (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a bit hyperbolic; this is still just a website. To answer your original question: having two accounts is not necessarily against the rules; however, if the SPI is correct, then using alternate accounts to continue editing after several of your other accounts have been blocked already (including an indef two weeks ago) definitely is against the rules. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I created the account on the basis of WP:SOFTBLOCK. I was able to edit and had all the functionalities once the block was finished. Stillwaters347 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Your block is not a soft block. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

"Third account"? What nonsense. I count 20 or so sockpuppet accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

An investigation is just that, an investigation, so it is valid in any case where there is genuine suspicion. The outcome of the investigation can be discussed with the closer. Nobody's reputation can be ruined here - the most severe outcome can be simply that someone is told not to edit a web site, which the vast majority of the world's population don't do anyway without any adverse results. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 3 August 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.

Muhammad Mahdi Karim and Mydreamsparrow

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Mahdi Karim for context. They were both blocked by TheresNoTime, and have each requested unblock, with the following from Muhammad:

I know User:Mydreamsparrow (Augustus Binu), a fellow photographer from my college days in India. We were studying and living in the same college and I introduced him to Wikipedia, showing him how to edit articles, create user pages and particularly introduced him to contribute to Wikipedia:Featured Pictures as a way of improving his photography since it had done so to me. During this time, we even took a picture of the Vidhana Soudha together and I have labelled it as such on Wiki since 2012. w:File:Vidhana_Soudha_2012.jpg.

Additionally, a simple check of the EXIF data of the pictures taken by Mydreamsparrow and me will show the differences in Camera used.

I am not aware who the other users linked in the accusation are or if they have any relation with Mydreamsparrow. If ip logs can assist to prove my innocence, you may see that since 2015, most of my edits will have been from Tanzania where I am now based.

I'm not sure about Wikipedia's procedure for blocking accused sockpuppets but it would have been good to at least have a chance to defend myself before getting blocked and my userpage getting blanked, having been a valuable contributing member for so many years. Really saddened and disappointed at this. Muhammad(talk) 10:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

From DreamSparrow:

OMG! I am surprised to see that my account is blocked for Sockpuppetry. As explained by Muhammad Mahdi Karim, we knew each other and he encouraged me to contribute to Wikipedia and I have contributed as much as I could by way of images and articles. You can check the entire contributions, all are either of politicians or connected to Judiciary of India as I am a lawyer by profession. Only deleted articles are of my budding time.

It is true that, I have motivated many to contribute to Wikipedia in the same way I was motivated. User:Blacknclick is my friend and User:Orator1989 my colleague. They are few of the contributors I have motivated to contributed to Wikipedia. Last few days User:Blacknclick was with me and that time again he started editing Wikipedia. Even he has created some article and asked me to review it and I reviewed it naturally. I never know whether any monetary benefits involved in it. As far as User:Orator1989, he is always in my office and we use common wifi for browsing. Even I have no idea about the benefits, if any, or kinds of edits he made.

Moreover, both of them are no way related or known to Muhammad Mahdi Karim as he is in Tanzania and we all are here in Kerala, India.

In addition, you can have a look at my contributions, all are genuine and neutral and I always stick on that because I am contributing to Wikipedia for last few years and of course I am by experience refined by myself about the contributions and policies of Wikipedia. If at all any related edits I made with the above mentioned users, it just natural and only a support to a fellow Wikipedian and no intentional malefieds involved in it. I am not a fan of paid contributions or vandalism. I always try to improve my contribution standards. Recently, if you verify, most of my contributions are related to Indian Judiciary.

As explained above, I may not be punished for the reason I have never dreamt of. And I will make my internet connection private and stop using the same by any other for avoiding any such situations in future.

I request your kind-self to be an active Wikipedian by unblocking me thereby allow me to contribute to Wikipedia many more valuable contributions. I will be much more cautious in future.DreamSparrow ^Chat 16:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I have not interacted with them much on Wikipedia, but based on what I've seen on Commons it doesn't seem like they are the same person. @TheresNoTime: Could you please comment on whether the checkuser evidence is consistent with what they are saying? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: Hi, I had someone point me to this thread - I've didn't receive a ping to either of the above mentions. I'm taking a look at this again, but this probably could have been handled on my talk page? - TheresNoTime ^😺 16:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The checkuser evidence is consistent with the above unblock requests. Without going into detail, the internet service provider of one of these users also offers VPN services which in the context of the SPI would have suggested evasion. I would not oppose an unblock of either/both of these accounts if the unblocking administrator is convinced that behaviourally there is no link (or that the link is sufficiently explained). - TheresNoTime ^😺 16:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I filed the SPI based off of concerning conduct/overlap and possible UPE socking. Given the explanation by the users and the comment from TheresNoTime, I'm not opposed to an unblock for socking (not that that really means anything), but it's essential that any and all UPE concerns previously highlighted should be thoroughly investigated at COIN. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks King of Hearts for your quick action. Some one will still need to delete all the defamatory categories created such as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Muhammad Mahdi Karim and all the sockpuppet messages left with my name on the deleted accounts. Additionally I'd request a serious review of this block, how it was allowed to pass so quickly without even asking for any feedback from me given that I have not had any accusation of disruption leveled at me during all my time here. --Muhammad(talk) 07:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Muhammad Mahdi Karim: As stated above, the filed SPI (and the concerns raised there) were valid from the information available at the time. I hope you can realise that the situation described above is rare. We also know that CheckUser data is only as useful as the context in which is was retrieved - its fairly easy to make technical data look "good" and "bad", and its only when applying the behavioural aspect of an investigation that we can make a judgement. In this case, I believe the "perfect storm" of circumstance lead to potentially false conclusions being made, and I can only apologise for the inconvenience. We're not perfect, and we're always trying to balance between preventing disruption and ensuring everyone has a chance to contribute. I hope this experience has not too negatively impacted your opinion or desire to continue editing. A formal review of this block would probably be best served by emailing the Arbitration Committee, though this can often take a while. If you would like, I can request a second opinion review from another CheckUser? In the meantime, if there is anything specifically you would like to discuss, or if there is anything I can do to help, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or email me - TheresNoTime ^😺 09:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @TheresNoTime: You seem to have missed the part where User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim said "Some one will still need to delete all the defamatory categories created ... and all the sockpuppet messages left with my name...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Pigsonthewing: Thank you for the ping. The category appears to have been recreated after I deleted it - TheresNoTime ^😺 16:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  Probably because it still had two members, because there were two user pages with templates (which I removed) asserting that they were his socks?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  Muhammad Mahdi Karim – I had a much longer response drafted, but TNT basically got it spot on. My apologies for the inconvenience and block log, and I hope you resume editing. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or via email. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shovan

Could someone who has been at AfD more recently than I please speedy keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shovan. The article was hijacked. I have reverted to prehijacking and blocked hijacker. I don't want to mess up the AfD wth my ham-handedness. Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Deepfriedokra, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Davey2010. My esssential tremors were pretty bad after I saw that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries Deepfriedokra, I bet, I've come across article hijacking in the past and lets just say you were much more calmer and politer than I was!, That was going back years tho .... didn't think it happened today tbh but guess it still does, –Davey2010^Talk 20:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk · contribs)

I just edited history of the Germany national football team to delete the 2016 Olympic title section because it was for U23, but this user undone my edit without reason, he deleted my discussion. Go great Germany (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that this is Japanese555's sockpuppet, and, for sure, discussing with a troll is a waste of time.

UnnamedUser 13:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If the information is correct, why undo it? This is the national team, not U23, Wikipedia brings objective facts, not polemics and distortions!!! Go great Germany (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

So I finally got it right, you're ruining it. Go great Germany (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Go great Germany have you ever used any other accounts here and are any of those accounts currently blocked? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to spoil the surprise - TheresNoTime ^😺 13:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phạm Văn Rạng/Archive. UnnamedUser 13:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Not surprised. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

#WPWP #WPWPARK

There's a whole bunch of editors--well, there was--adding images with this hashtag, which is a context run on Meta, I think, for monetary prizes. Rschen7754, you know more about this then I do. So I was watching a couple of editor with very similar names making edits with the same edit summary, and my curiosity was peeked. To cut a long story short, there were dozens of accounts from the same IPs (and IP ranges), many with similar user names. On top of that, the many talk pages I saw were loaded with comments and questions by other editors (I know Ashleyyoursmile) blocked one of those accounts, can't remember which), indicating just how problematic a number of those edits were; for some editors, all had been reverted. Very few of the editors whose edits were problematic responded; most of the accounts were simply abandoned. I have not rolled back everything I ran into, but I did for some of the editors.

So I don't know exactly what is going on, nor am I convinced that all the accounts I blocked are the same person. But I do know that these really unexplained, not always carefully vetted, and bot-like edits are disruptive, that there are at least a few fishy editors at play, and that the narrow ranges that I investigated were just absolutely suspicious. Oh, I'll note also that there may be, or may have been, two or three SPIs filed and/or socking suspicions uttered. Usually those also are responded to by the editor simply ceasing all activity--another telling quality. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

There's more at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users adding images to articles at a high rate of speed if you haven't seen it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

But won't someone think of the user engagement?! How will we increase the total number of editors if we're not paying people to add unvetted images to articles?! It certainly won't end up in sock or meat farms adding images to get the maximum payout. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That is interesting. I've thought that these all were independent people just looking to make a game out of Wikimedia - but maybe some of them are part of a sockfarm. --Rschen7754 18:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If there's a way to get money online there will be people exploring it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I hadn't, thanks (OK I just did--should have looked there first, but it confirms my suspicion about the quality of many of the edits, and the bot-like nature in which at least a couple of the accounts operated. Thanks again.). I looked on AN, and on a bunch of editor talk pages. Y'all, note that I am not happy about any of this, including my own reverts: a few have already been rolled back, and I am perfectly OK with that--if established editors find any of those edits to be good, please undo me. User:Rschen7754, all the ones I blocked came from ranges that I found after checking just one editor, and neither that editor nor any of the others, indicated something about a drive, or an edit-a-thon, or anything like that. Nor did I look over the entire Meta page, BTW, and maybe I should have--but if you look in my block log, you also see similar user names, and you will find editors who were critiqued and just walked away. So really I don't doubt that there is at least one editor who is responsible for a bunch of the accounts. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

For those interested, we have a filter tracking (and as of yesterday, tagging) at 1073. Having lived through this last year, I'll say that this is a terribly thought-out competition that does more harm than good, but that's the fault of the organizers. It is not sock/meatpuppetry (unless one of them gets blocked for CIR issues and makes a new account, of course). GeneralNotability (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How feasible would it be to modify this filter/probably have another one to emit a warning message to all users trying to save an edit with an edit summary containing one of the hashtags and x< number of edits which reminds them that images need to be appropriate and link them to relevant guidelines? It won't stop the dedicated "image grinders" or somebody who doesn't care, but it might help correct some good faith mistakes. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 19:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite trivial, but I doubt these folks are going to slow down to read the directions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I still have User:Berrely/Photos if a EF notice is needed. – BerrelyP • ^T∕_C 08:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It's something to do with this: [34] Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Drmies: could the shared IP ranges be a shared educational institution or something? As for socking to exploit the chance of money, wouldn't that be a rather self-defeating move on their part? I mean, the whole aim of the contest is to become the account with the most image additions; it wouldn't really make sense to split that activity between multiple sock accounts, all competing against each other, would it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, that is entirely possible, and yes, I understand your argument--it is one of the things that I am struggling with. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

(trying to use proper indentation in spite of those who have messed it up) Why has nobody replied to my post at the related ANI discussion? It gets to the nub of this issue, as opposed to the circumlocution that everyone else seems to using. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably because we have no jurisdiction here over a user at Commons, even if they are banned here?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

But we have jurisdiction over edits that are made on English Wikipedia, which is what this is about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll post here want I just posted at the AN/I discussion. I sincerely and rationally think that we should ban the contest. IMO rapid addition of images is just a horrible thing waiting to happen. Adding an image should involve an accuracy check, a rationale check, a licensing check, and a layout check. We're just going to get a bunch of images with bad licensing added to articles from this. With the whole focus being rate of speed, contestant's aren't going to check the image licensing. And we can't assume everything on Commons is okay (I nominate stuff for deletion on commons that I run into in articles here several times a month, because there's tons of bad licensing there). And we shouldn't be encouraging people to cram as many images into articles as possible - it causes layout and sometimes accessibility issues (see MOS:SANDWICH, among other things). We're just going to wind up with a bunch of articles crammed to the gills with images with often-shitty licensing because of this, and that's frankly disruptive. At a minimum, we need to make it clear that this contest should not be adding images to FAs - the FA criteria include image layout, licensing, and relevance checks, and a contest about speed editing images to articles is going to cause issues with the FA criteria. Hog Farm _Talk 19:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC) This whole thing is a shitshow waiting to happen. The fact that this causes disruption every damn time it happens means that something needs to be done. Hog Farm _Talk 19:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree we need to scrap it. Me and other editors have had to repeatedly remove an incorrect image added to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article by multiple editors as part of this nonsense. GiantSnowman 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree. The worst thing you can do on Wikipedia is waste someone else's time with carelessness, and that's exactly what these people are doing. Owing to the high rate of speed and the history of issues, we can't AGF that every image added by a WPWP editor is suitable, so we have to check each one for accuracy or risk letting problematic images sit in articles forever. This is a huge timesink and an unfair burden to dump on regular enwiki editors. The fact that some good images get added doesn't remotely make up for the rest of the time-wasting. At the very least they should be throttled somehow if at all possible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: To reduce the rate at which these edits are being done you couldn't we just use the edit filter? It should be fairly trivial to set up a rate limit to limit each contestant to a fixed number of image additions per day. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I would assume it's possible since it's something people mentioned at the ANI, but I have no idea how it's done from a technical perspective. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

This whole thing feels like a WP:NOTGAME issue to me. I'm all for contests to spur improvements to the encyclopedia, but in this case, it's built almost entirely on speed of editing and quantity. And when you focus on quantity, quality goes out the window here. Carefully adding images is good. Adding images as fast as possible does not contribute to building an encyclopedia. Hog Farm _Talk 02:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hard agree. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there have been complaints about the WikiCup for years, but adding images is a lot easier to do, and do poorly. --Rschen7754 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that the WikiCup is different in that it a) doesn't involve cash prizes as far as I can tell and b) participants are generally regular editors who are familiar with our norms. WikiCup also doesn't really incentivize high-speed editing in the same way - it's hard to churn out FA/GAs at a rate of more than one per minute, unless maybe you're Epicgenius :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I totally concur with Hog Farm and PMC. I blocked Godson18 a few days ago for rapidly adding images which were already present in various articles with incomprehensible edit summaries, and around 150 additions in an hour. They refused to discuss their problematic edits and dived back to the same behaviour after the expiry of their previous block. Everyday, the filter log picks up several of the "#WPWP #WPWPARK" edits and most of the time these editors add images to articles just for the sake of adding an image, and are not improvements. Given the rapid rate of such additions, I don't think it's possible to check each and every of these and it's becoming very disruptive at this point. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Besides problematic images identified (wrong image focus, bad captions, etc.) I can see this bordering on issues related to article conformity and infoboxes, which after the result of a few ArbCom cases, we know is not something we want. There are reasons some articles may forgo a leading image, and this contest doesn't seem to respect that, instead just encouraging volumes of editors without checking. --Masem (t) 19:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
One of the accounts I blocked responded, and on User talk:CaliBen, where I asked them for an explanation, they provided some. However, their somewhat incomplete answers also pose more questions: there is no clarity on what organization is involved here, for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, image disruption aside, this does seem like a reasonable explanation. We know that WPWPARK is a Tanzanian group - specifically m:Wikimedians_of_Arusha_User_Group. Count the laptops in the pics. The hashtag was recorded here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait, we've had a hashtag-in-edit-summary search tool this whole time!? GeneralNotability (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

zzuuzz, I unblocked CaliBen and will be happy to reconsider others--and I don't mind if others undo blocks I placed. That's not to say that I don't think there was no abuse at all, and in general it seems to me that this iteration in this place (under these ranges) was done with the best interest of the project in mind. I'd love to have more editors aboard, especially from those backgrounds, but I don't think this was a great idea. (And I'll add that Wikipedia's coverage of, for instance, the Global South will only improve if edits are made on the Global South, particularly by editors from the Global South, but there's a few studies out there that suggest that those editors precisely do not contribute so much to that part of the project--that's all by the by, of course.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This is kinda just the same as last year. Editors unhappy about the problem, some discussion about remedies, discussion fades out and we go right back to the same problems next year. Personally I think it's clear some action is necessary. I'd have preferred to see more discussion on a) the problem rate; b) the remedies I proposed at ANI, but it does seem like a consensus is forming anyway, if not necessarily the one I want. There's also only a finite number of solutions, I think, and I believe we've raised them all. Hence:

Remedies (poll)

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.

---

1. Do nothing / wait and see. The campaign organisers have said organisers will patrol the edit filter log and help with cleanup.
2. Authorise the use of the edit filter to take appropriate actions to decrease the proportion or volume of disruptive edits. This may include things like:
   1. Passive messages. Use an edit filter to show a message welcoming contest participants to this project, giving guidance on effective images, reminding them to take it slow and focus on quality, and reiterating the consequences of disruption.
   2. Throttle contributions to help enforce quality over quantity, such as by setting a maximum number of entries per day and/or minimum delay between edits. (eg no more than 25 #WPWP entries per day, and no more than one every 5 minutes).
   3. Prohibit the contest on certain types of articles (I believe the error rate on taxa is much higher than the error rate on BLPs, for example).
3. Ban the contest on the English Wikipedia. The filter will be set to disallow "#WPWP" edits.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support either 2 or 3, with a slight preference for 2. It is clear something must be done, but I'd prefer trying to use filters to mitigate it before resorting to an all out ban, however if necessary I'll also support that. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 09:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2 as first choice, 3 as second, particularly if 2 doesn't sufficiently reduce disruption. I would particularly support 2.2, that is throttling contributions to something like 10 per day per user. firefly ( t · c ) 10:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2, then 3 Something needs to be done, and if 2 doesn't work, then we can do the "nuclear option" of banning the contest.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2, then 3 if that doesn't work. Per my comments here and the ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: The diff you linked in remedy #1 has been suppressed.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, seems to be collateral damage, will replace it with a permalink to the section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support 2, then 3. It's untenable to do nothing (although the general newbie revert rate is 27% and I believe the rate of problematic contest edits is far lower than that, the volume of contest edits overwhelms our volunteer capacity for review). I would prefer to exhaust all our possible options before moving towards banning, as this contest (when it works) does improve articles, and is a good way to recruit editors from global communities underrepresented in our editor pool. So long as we can get the number of disruptive edits under control this is fine, and we can't say that option 2 won't achieve that goal unless we actually try it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2, in particular strong support for 2.1 and 2.2. I have seen good contributions in the contest, but the rate is too fast for us to absorb it gracefully and allow newcomers to calmly learn to improve. Some users could learn if they were throttled and got explanations in their talk pages, but when they have a high bad edit rate and high speed, it gets to the point that a temporary block is desirable to prevent disruption. So we shouldn't let them get to the point where a block is the most sane solution. MarioGom (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 3 for any future contests, Support 2 for the contest that's currently running, particularly 2.2. This is the second year this contest has been run, and the second year it's made a mess that our volunteers have had to clean up. The edit filter currently has 57,000 hits, it's ridiculous to suggest that the contest organisers are going to be able to review the filter logs and clean up any substandard edits. Until the organisers put in some kind of process to ensure that edits are universally of good quality I think we should ban future contests. It wouldn't even need to be a major change to the rules: something like "For every image you add you get 1 point, for every image addition that is removed by a non-contestant editor you lose 10 points" would probably be sufficient. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  The 'negative points system' seems like a good idea to me. @Deborahjay: thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  The "negative points" option can certainly be developed for inclusion in the campaign operations, as it emphasizes following the rules and maintaining the integrity of the WP project. The WPWP FAQ and Rules already has a statement that inappropriate edits will be "disqualified" from a user's score. This requires review by the Organizing Team supervising the 58(!) participating communities. Now at the exact midpoint of the campaign, the main organizer and I are starting a review of the metrics for new users to direct any necessary support. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Deborahjay and ProcrastinatingReader: Another option (that would be a lot more work but would probably be better) would be to implement some kind of review or rating system, where say 5-10% of the edits by each contributor are reviewed and given a score which results in points. It doesn't need to be a featured picture level review, but some simple questions like "Is the image actually of the right person/species/thing?", "is the image of reasonable quality (resolution/crop/focus/brightness)?" and "has the image been added to the right place in the article?" would be sensible to look at. It's obvious at a glance that an edit like Special:Diff/968295203 doesn't improve the article. Fundamentally though I think the contest needs to shift away from "add as many images as fast as possible" to "add images that improve articles". If we wanted to bulk add "foo.png" to the article on "foo" or add every image from wikidata to the top of its connected article any of our bot operators could set up a script to do that trivially. What we want is for editors to be putting some editorial thought into their additions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  We on the WPWP team can focus on a basic 0:1 evaluation: the existing rule for a valid edit is to add one appropriate image (with caption and edit summary stating more than #WPWP) to a page that didn't have one. The guidance team's task now (starting 1 August 2021, the midpoint) is to locate editors making unacceptable edits, contacting them with specifics, and taking action per their response. This is the quickest intervention to tackle problems raised here while maintaining and improving participation. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  I guess I'm still wondering how we will deal with licensing issues. Very few (not me, for sure) are licensing experts, and we for sure can't expect newer editors to be familiar with it much. But there's a lot of badly licensed stuff on Commons, including quite a bit that isn't free. With standard image additions, the amount of crappy licensing added in manageable, but if we're encouraging newer editors to mass-add images when they likely won't know the ins and outs of licensing, we could wind up with a very large quantity of questionable images. Is there going to be any way to prevent this? Hog Farm _Talk 15:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think this contest is so much about adding content to Commons as adding unused, existent, Commons content to Wikipedia articles. The licencing of those images is a Commons issue, not en-WP but if you find questionable licences then those can be raised on Commons. Nthep (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support 2, then 3, a mess made in good faith is still a mess. Editor time is valuable, and it wastes it when editors have to check the quality of a picture added one-by-one. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2 for this contest, (2.2 may be best), and 3 for next year's'. I don't believe the coordinators of the contest will really truly be able to check everything due to the scope, so that doesn't seem like something we can rely on (isn't one of the organizers of this banned from images on enwiki). I just don't think the whole concept of this (let's add stuff as fast as we can!) is a good collaborative idea. If we had non-contest users adding images this fast, there would be trouble. So why an outside contest should be treated any differently, I don't know. A contest focused on improving articles at a reasonable rate to encourage quantity improves the encyclopedia. Something like this that focuses on doing things as fast as possible without even paying that close of attention is turning the encyclopedia into a game. Hog Farm _Talk 13:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support for 2.1 and 2.2. This is a very thoughtful poll. While WPWP is a huge channel to recruit new users and engage them to help with a very vital part of the reader experience, we need to devise means to see harm is not done rather than lock off a new wave of enthusiastic Wikipedians. My teenage brother has had more cause to hop on Wikipedia because of the images. He has become better at his academics and has grown interests in General Knowledge and Chinese Culture. RIGHT HERE. This is pretty much like every petty mistake that new editors (of whom we were once part of) commit. Organizers have committed to addressing this with the new editors. Let's give them a chance.Danidamiobi (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 as first choice, then 2.1 and 2.3 by second choice, and if required 2.2. 2.3 to be applied in particular on FA articles. Anthere (talk)
• Fine with 1 but see my addition below.
  Support 2.1 because communication is good.
  Meh about 2.2 because while a high throttling number shouldn't actually pose that much of an obstacle and would limit the damage done by someone who is both prolific and doing it poorly, I'm not quite sold that the problems are bad enough such that what really matters is that we must be able to review them all right away.
  Oppose 2.3 unless it can be accomplished by technical intervention - that is, if we're relying on instructions added in the middle of a contest, that seems like a bad idea. If it's possible to do this via technical means, then I don't mind supporting this where people have found clear evidence of lots of users adding images problematically (but not for hypotheticals about what might be hard to add a picture to).
  Strong oppose 3 at this stage as panic with (as far as I've seen) woefully insufficient data backing it up.
  Option 4 (new option): Request that organizers publish an evaluation of this contest sometime after its completion. The evaluation should be based on data to provide a clear picture of both successes and challenges/failures. I don't think we can expect a 100% thorough report, since AFAIK the organizers are volunteers, but some form of sampling seems doable. We can then use that to suggest changes or otherwise make decisions about next year's contest, should it run again.
  Finally, I do just want to add that I think this contest is a very good thing, and want to thank the organizers for volunteering their time to run it. I think we on the English Wikipedia are very aware of our need for more volunteers and the limitations of our community's time. That gives rise to a vigilance that can be very important to maintaining the integrity of our articles, but it also can lead us to panic or react harshly to the very activities that try to bring in new users (whether new active editors or, as in this case, people coming to make small and mostly positive edits in large numbers). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  I mostly wanted to focus this section on technical local interventions we can implement, rather than just suggestions for the organisers. While I think there are things the organisers can do (I suggested training elsewhere, and the IP suggested 'negative points', and you've suggested a report in your option 4, all of which are good ideas IMO) I don't think these are 'interventions', ie they're pretty much option 1 ('do nothing for now'). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  +1 Agree with this, nothing to add. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Mostly per Rhodendrites including 4, but I would add a 5 that covers all contests, we should have English Wikipedia Users identified and named perhaps in a Cent notice, who can take responsibility, and action, and who we can immediately go and talk to. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2.1 and 2.2 3 is always an option but I would support something less drastic first. --Rschen7754 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support 2.1 and 2.2. There is great possibility in decreasing the mistakes and becoming better if we give it a chance. It was through #WPWP last year that a newbie improved several articles with photos and got converted to a Wikimedian faithful. And he did all these with little or no mistakes. AFAIK, there were others alike who did more good than harm during the contest. This is the good side of this contest. It's not bad in it's entirety. We just need to remember it's the second year of the project, with more learning than previous year to do better in the future. This is characteristic of every project and this is no different. We just need to give the organizers and everyone willing to step in a chance. Ptinphusmia (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  Anything that improves Wikipedia is good, but giving it a chance should involve the organizers of this contest learning from mistakes when it has been run before. Is there any evidence that they have learnt anything at all from last year? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment In the past we've published the contest using the WD4WP tool that loads images using the P18 item from Wikidata. I kept a link to it from last contest and have been using it this year. It seems not to have been mentioned this year, but it works well identifying pages missing images (entirely dependent upon the uploader using the P18 variable correctly); some of my uploads using it have been reverted simply because the image wasn't what the tool said it was. All in all, it's rather helpful with this type of contest. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Oaktree b:: please note that if the "image wasn't what the tool said it was", it is still your own responsibility to check. Don't use that tool blindly. It's full of false positives. It is also your own responsibility to avoid edit-warring, which is what happens when you blindly reinsert images recommended by the tool , when other editors have tried the same previously but have been reverted. This has happened in a lot of cases. Please check not just the image and the article, but also the article's recent edit history, to avoid these cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 3 preferable to 2, then 4 (Rhododendrites's suggestion) regardless. I'm looking at today's edit filter hits and I see some people adding images at rates near 1/minute. There is no way sufficient thought is going into these edits, which makes this more "disruptive" than "useful." Further, I suspect the time needed to vet these additions is greater than the time people are spending making them, which makes this a net loss of editor time. Unless the contest organizers come up with a very convincing plan for mitigating the disruption next year, I say pull the plug, and I am all for throttling or disallowing the current wave. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2.1 and 2.2 slow pace with focus on quality rather than quantity. I believe that this will address the long standing issues raised. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2.1 and 2.2With sound control in place, I see a steady learning curve among the young participants.---Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 3 I've had to remove one misleading photo this morning and my heart sank looking at the editing history of the contributor. Hundreds and hundreds of contributions of photos to articles with no understanding of the subjects, made within minutes of each other. It will take me weeks to go through their edits. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2.1 and 2.3 The problem here is that some new editors who aren't familiar with editing here are being disruptive. There are several other experienced editors contributing (and some new editors contributing constructively) to this campaign. We can't shut down an entire campaign because a handful of new editors are being disruptive. Let's try option 1, 2.1 and 2.2 first before a draconic move of banning this campaign. Kaizenify (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Judging from edits on my watchlist, I support 3. I believe there was an article where an irrelevant image was added three times (a metro station in Lausanne, the image did not show the station).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2.1 and 2.2 and if that fails then 3's the next best solution, Personally I think the entire thing should be banned right here right now but I know that wont happen. Someone at ANI reckoned the majority of edits were good ..... I still beg to differ on that but hey ho. –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1 as first choice, then 2.1 then 2.2 WPWP has a positif impact in general on Wikipedia and I'm sure with some control measures and with the increase of the learning level among new participants, everything will be fine. IMHO option 3 is a drastic and an easy decision that we should avoid. --Yamen (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• 2.1 and/or 2.2. I would just like to state for the record that I am unhappy about the entire contest for the following reasons: (1) its emphasis on quantity over quality; (2) the fact that it encourages a large number of very rapid, low-effort edits, as opposed to a smaller number of carefully thought-out edits; (3) the monetary (or equivalent) prizes, which unavoidably means that at least some participants will be in just for the money. -- 2001:16B8:1E5F:8500:9C7A:B8F:F6A:1B6F (talk) 02:13, 1 August 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.

Zebronics Draft unblock request

Hello Admin, I request to unblock Draft:Zebronics so that I can show that this is a potential page. If you think, I am right then you can unblock Zebronics later but atleast a trial should be given. Alllyy (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The community has discussed this matter and decided it should be deleted and not recreated: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zebronics. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I will also note that all 3 users who created this article in the past are blocked. 2 of them as sockpuppets of User:Infozeb. Are you in anyway connected with these users who created it in the past? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC Looking at the company's website and Google news stories, it might actually (now) be notable ... Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection if another admin feel differently about this than me. Things change after all. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I have unprotected Draft:Zebronics (but not the mainspace article). If the draft turns into a piece of advertising it simply won't be moved to mainspace. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

IP's concerns about Global sysop Wikibayer

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxima_Group&diff=1036533469&oldid=1036486258

Someone had written in Maxima Group a paragraph about annual internships of Maxima LT in Lithuania. It is not promotional in any ways and is fully informational and supported by two reliable sources. Yet, global sysop Wikibayer continues his useless tirade of malicious reverts regarding commercial topics and topics related to singer Frank Mortenson (and apparently doesn't care to read sources at all). He also spreads conspiracy theories on English Wiki, but that will be another topic, as I have no time to talk about it there and now. Dear administrators who seriously work on Wikipedia, please tell this individual from Bavaria to thoroughly read the sources and stop his malicious actions. If he continues, I hope someone will request a ban for him. --83.187.109.195 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Info: this is a crosswiki abuse see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123/Archive & User:Meters/Frank Mortenson LTA WikiBayer (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about your links. You are focused on a single purpose to remove all info regarding Frank Mortenson from all Wikipedias, even when it's supported by reliable secondary sources. Fails Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --83.187.109.195 (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Block evasion. 83.187.96.107 was blocked last month as an LTA (context: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123/Archive). Block IP and close this.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, is there anyone to read the sources before reverting my edits? To note, if you attempt to black all range of 83.187......, it means you block half of Vilnius district from editing Wikipedia. --83.187.109.195 (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Is that Tele2 Lithuania's market share? Besides blocking the specific IP above, a partial block could be enacted on the range in regards to the specific articles most affected.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is and blocking the whole region from editing Wikipedia (even if, as you say, in regards to the specific articles most affected) is equal to censorship. I ask you once more, care to read the sources before reverting my reverts. Adding or removing any content with no attention to secondary sources is a bad-faith activity. --83.187.109.195 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Range blocks don't help much, the ranges are too big.

This abuse filter is better. Can a sysop import this filter. WikiBayer (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I am thoroughly waiting when this abuse filter will be enacted. Finally, the news headlines will make a sensation: "Famous singers were banned to be mentioned in any part of Wikipedia because of personal feelings of Bavarian global sysop". --83.187.109.195 (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for 3 days. The IPs are from (so far) 3 separate /16 ranges, so range-blocking isn't feasible. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain what's the point of this semi-protection? There was a whole paragraph of information about Maxima internships with two fully reliable sources, then some infamous wiki-vandals came reverting it because of their personal feelings, so, what's the point? --83.187.109.195 (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

trade mark icon in the title?

I just popped on new page feed to have a look and the very first one Islamic Educational Institute Kandoora™ has a trade mark tag in the title. Are you even allowed that on wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Eh, nope. I've moved it. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

k, cheers, was the first time I've ever seen that happen, so caught me off guard. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Govvy, MOS:TM discusses this sort of thing, for future reference. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: You know there are so many help/sub pages on wikipedia I doubt there is one person that knows them all! Govvy (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Except, of course, for fully paid-up members of The Cabal™. We ensure that all such pages are always in the precise form that furthers our own nefarious interests. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Phil, we all agreed at our last meeting, there is no cabal. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Because we agreed there was a kabal. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Govvy, I sure as hell don't know them all. My first step is usually to try typing WP:THING then MOS:THING into the search window - it works more often than you might expect. (Funnily enough, I just discovered that WP:THING exists. Who knew?) Girth Summit _(blether) 12:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger:, did you just include yourself in a (we). Saying you're part of a Cabal? And HighInBC was in the last cabal meeting? Has fiction broken into reality again..?? Govvy (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Govvy: did you miss the punctuation mark in "of The Cabal™." ? As Phil wrote two separate sentences, the "we" in the second sentence need not refer to whatever body is mentioned in the first. HighInBC's "we" need not be the same as Phil's "we", and regardless Phil does not refer to the cabal. Be attentive, punctuation marks may significantly alter the meaning of statements.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Eostrix: You're an English professor I take it! Govvy (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Appealing topic ban for Akakakalal

This new user continue distribute edit on this page Anjana Chaudhari , Vandalism edit [[35]],[[36]],[【https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1034776668]] Same many times edit on this page. Please action this Vandalism user. Hind ji (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not vandalism, that's a content dispute where you are both edit warring. I can not verify the claim you support, that they are Jat, but I can verify their claim, that they are Kurmi[37] (the Anjana Patel are the same as the Anjana Chaudhary, it seems[38]). That doesn't mean that they are % right and you are wrong, but it does mean that they aren't vandalizing. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

And you must notify the other editor of this discussion, as indicated in the large coloured box at the top here. Fram (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In general, I think you (Hind ji) needs to slow down and learn how to edit here instead of rushing forward with many problematic edits. Your user talk page has quite a few warnings already, your articles or redirects get deleted, and in the past days I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keken clan and I have just had to undo a copy paste move from the correct Kalbi to the unsupported Kalbi Samaj. And then there's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hind ji from today. You just seem to be trying all kinds of stuff, never mind if it is appropriate or correct, to get your way, and treat opposing edits as vandalism, even when they definitely aren't vandalism and many of your edits seem incorrect. Fram (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I question how the heading "Appealing topic ban for Akakakalal" is relevant to the issue that concerns an ongoing edit war. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess they are requesting a topic ban, but English isn't their first language. Fram (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better suited for ANI then? ( And it probably could use a change of heading)Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps. What this most needs is some admin or other editor with a decent knowledge of Indian society structure to take a look at the article, and to talk to both editors about edit warring, vandalism, tagging, sourcing, ... Hind ji tagging the article as a BLP[39] after the start of this discussion isn't very promising, but perhaps a firm though patient helping hand may turn them into a productive, collaborative editor before it's too late. Fram (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Can some uninvolved admin please take a look at this? After the above problems, Hind ji requested Rollback rights (2 times in a row, twice rejected, and then again at User talk:MusikAnimal#rollback rights: apparently they still believe that they are fighting vandalism instead of simply edit warring over content or reverting IPs for no good reason[40]), and then also requested file mover rights[41] by copying the complete text of the request right above them, thereby making all kinds of false claims about there file edits and experience. It was also rightly rejected for that reason, but taken all together (with the above issues and others), I wonder whether they should be left to edit as if nothing happened. Fram (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Article name

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. Please change the name of the article "Pol Sangi" to "Stone Bridge (Tabriz)". See similar examples "here".--Trkgs (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is not the proper location for your request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves for requesting a move to a new title, but first review Wikipedia:Article titles. Are there any reliable sources that call the structure "Stone Bridge" in English? Please also note that Stone Bridge includes links to several articles in the See also section with titles that have not been translated into English. - Donald Albury 14:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

From speaking them the issue seems to be that the bridge has been given a name in Persian, which isn't the language spoken in the area, which is Azerbaijani. Clearly not an issue for this page anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. But here Wikipedia is English and I think it is better to use the English name. Local names can be explained in the text of the article.--Trkgs (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

A comment left on the article's talk page by Trkgs has been converted to a formal WP:RM; a duplicate article at Sangi Bridge was also converted to a redirect. This thread can be closed now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:36, 2 August 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.

Jordan Henderson

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.

---

Does this link [42] need striking out of the history? Govvy (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 15:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Govvy (talk) 20:05, 2 August 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.

New image correcting error in two previous mathematical images

Not fixing this myself because I almost never upload images, and I'm not sure what the correct procedure here is. Anyway, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hexacomb.gif, originally uploaded in 2008, is supposed to be an image of all 82 free hexahexes (here, "free" means hexahexes are only considered to be different hexahexes if they cannot be transformed to be the same even after being freely rotated and reflected). The original image was converted in 2011 from GIF to SVG at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hexacomb.svg. However, those two images have an error in them that went uncaught for a decade until recently, a new user, User:CJCTW, noticed the error: to quote from his edit summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polyhex_%28mathematics%29&diff=1021729215&oldid=1020400306, "the hexahex on third row, third in from the right, and the hexahex on the fourth row, eighth in from the left, were duplicates".

CJCTW uploaded a corrected/fixed version of the image, but instead of uploading over the previous images as an edit, he uploaded at a separate filename, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hexacomb-update.svg. First, I want to applaud CJCTW for spotting the mistake and making a corrected image. However, the way the correction was uploaded (uploading as a separate image instead of as an edit to the previous images) seems bad, since people might continue to mistakenly link to and embed the two original wrong/mistaken images in articles. Is there any way to merge the histories of these image pages? Alternatively, if history merger, which seems to me the best solution, is not possible, can the two original wrong/mistaken images be deleted, so that the two original wrong/mistaken images won't continue to be used, or at the very least can some sort of indicator be added to the two original wrong/mistaken images that they have an error?

—Lowellian (reply) 04:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

You should replace all uses of the original images with updated ones and then nominate them for deletion on Commons. Ruslik_Zero 11:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I tagged the GIF for deletion for an unrelated reason (unused low-quality GIF with available high-quality SVG). Hist-merge is certainly an option by request at commons:Commons:History merging and splitting if you prefer that approach rather than updating the links to point to the new filename and filing a commons:Commons:Deletion requests. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

After discussion with some other commons folks, I did a histmerge. DMacks (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:DMacks: Thank you! :) —Lowellian (reply) 02:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Unlimited accounts without socking

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, this guy <removed> completed 58 jobs, and 7 are in progress mostly are about creating new Wikipedia pages. He is doing paid edits with IPs worldwide I think it is a huge violation <removed>. My friend Greg helped me with this investigation, <removed>, He claims that he created Blinkist and Omio both articles are created by (User:Störm) but not disclosed on his user page. This guy has chatted with me a few weeks ago I have doubts that he is the same guy who tried to report my paid edits which is a good thing I would like to thank him, I corrected myself I don't violate any Wikipedia guidelines or policies like he is doing. I highly doubt that these IPs are from same guy 182.182.24.179, 92.5.2.97 and 2A02:C7F:F6C8:F300:100C:3A82:D551:2245. He should link his Upwork profile on his user page along with their real name as per Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

We cannot enforce them linking to their merc-service accounts. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 06:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} thank you.

• @RASSIOPEIA:, you can't link to evidence outside of Wikipedia here or anywhere on Wikipedia because of WP:OUTING. If you have strong evidence, you should e-mail the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee with the evidence.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) okay thanks very much that's really helpful, I'm going to mail them. RASSIOPEIA (talk) 06:37, 3 August 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:RASSIOPEIA hiding paid contributions

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. It is good that they (User:RASSIOPEIA) are disclosing the paid edits, but seems like most of their edits are paid and they are not disclosing all of their paid contributions. Sometimes we have to confirm from them if they are doing paid edits, see here.

They have done 11 projects on Upwork, but have only disclosed 6 projects on their profile. For transparency, they should link their Upwork profile on their user page along with their real name as per Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. 182.182.24.179 (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Might this be WP:OUTing, as the linked upwork page allegedly shows RASSIOPEIA's real name? I am not aware of any paid editing guidelines requiring a user to disclose their real name. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm... I am surprised that this account was allowed. Isn't it just mocking (who was then) User:CASSIOPEIA, who works NPP and would have handled much spam and UPE? Waiting two years to edit suggests sleeper. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

[This] suggest you're likely right.92.5.2.97 (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree, not sure if UAA would be appropriate, though, since Cassiopeia has since changed their name to not be all caps, so the names are not that confusing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wow! Cassiopeia, does this user ring any bells? Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have seen so many Upwork editors who are not using their real names as Wikipedia user names. (elided) but his Wikipedia account is (elided). How am I violating any guideline please tell me? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I liked Cassiopeia username and user page that's I tried to create user page like his. I didn't know this is appropriate or a violation, I apologize if I unknowingly violate anything. Please guide me on how can I fix it? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

182.182.24.179 this IP address is from my country and I'm 100% sure he is paid editor who is trying to get me banned. I would recommend please check his IP seems like a sockpuppet and he is hiding his real Wikipedia account! How a newbie can know about Wikipedia paid edits? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there have been issues with RASSIOPEIA not disclosing paid contributions upfront until asked directly about them. This has happened at least with Wondershare Recoverit Data Recovery in March (UPE warning / disclosure), Eric Deters in April (UPE warning / disclosure), One Disease in July (UPE warning / disclosure), and Draft:Sagami Rubber Industries most recently (UPE warning / disclosure). It's really concerning that they continue to have to be prodded by others about whether they're being paid for edits (with the answer invariably being yes). DanCherek (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Noting an additional instance of what appears to be undisclosed paid editing by RASSIOPEIA at Draft:Christian Nwachukwu — their upload of File:Christian_Nwachukwu_photo.jpg specifies Christian Nwachukwu sent me this file via email. DanCherek (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@RASSIOPEIA I have removed the places where you connected an external account to a wikipedia account. Please do not do that, it is WP:OUTING, which is one of the more serious violations of our policies. Continued attempts at outing will inevitably lead to you being blocked. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The user for which RASSIOPEIA did so already linked the accounts on their user page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bbarmadillo

If there is any outing here, it is on the part of 182.182.24.179, who connected RASSIOPEIA's upwork account to their Wikipedia account before RASSIOPEIA linked them on their userpage. Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jackattack1597, I'm sorry for WP: OUTING, I didn't know about this. I will not make any mistake from now on. I apologize for my mistakes. And was not aware of connecting my Upwork profile with my Wikipedia account. Please guide me how can I fix my mistakes and my intention was never to break any Wikipedia policy. RASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek I apologize for not disclosing that paid edits Draft:Christian Nwachukwu. I forgot to disclose about this one otherwise I have disclosed all paid edits and from now on I will not make any single paid edits without disclosing. Please give me a chance :( RASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Please guide me how can I fix my mistakes. RASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Forgot? What about these (Ivan Petricevic, Verisurf Logo) which you received by emails from their respective subjects and haven't disclosed? I have reservations about Draft:Payza too. 2A02:C7F:F6C8:F300:100C:3A82:D551:2245 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Upon further digging, I found Draft:Hipla Technologies, a spam article they created and never disclosed and there is one in-progress job for online magazine they are doing, see this, but haven't disclosed. Maybe it is Draft:Lake_and_McHenry_County_Scanner. 2A02:C7F:F6C8:F300:100C:3A82:D551:2245 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@RASSIOPEIA: the problem is you seem to keep forgetting to disclose, as evidenced by the plenty of examples from DanCherek where you only disclosed after someone warned you. Is there even one case when you disclosed your status before you were warned/someone asked? If you're going to claim you always planned to disclose, but after you finished your editing spree that's not good enough. You need to disclose before you edit. So effectively you've already been given a lot of chances and lots of guidance. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know that I have to disclose before making any edits, I promise I won't make that mistake again. And about [Draft:Payza]] was not a paid edit I was contributing it has nothing to do with my paid edits. And not Ivan Petricevic, my all edits are not paid. I'm feeling terrible now I've been framed by some other paid editor. I would like request please give me a last chance. ;/ RASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It is quite literally your job to research and learn the rules for disclosing paid contributions. You will not get sympathy for feeling terrible, but you will get more patience from the community if you fix any rule-breaking now and act properly in the future. Trying to deflect blame to other editors, such as the contributor who started this discussion, will lose you patience. We allow people to edit without an account, and some very experienced Wikipedians choose to do so. Now, is it true that you have more projects listed as complete on Upwork than disclosures on your userpage, and why is there this difference? — Bilorv (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Bilorv, I understand it's my job and from now on I'm not going to make any mistake. From 11 Upwork projects 4 was by the same client for same article of Eric Deters I can proof that. And I'm not going to make any edits from now on without doing in-depth research. RASSIOPEIA (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

2A02:C7F:F6C8:F300:100C:3A82:D551:2245 how can I disclose for edits which I was not paid for? Draft:Lake_and_McHenry_County_Scanner they have not paid me anything I can share my chat? Job in progress is for some other online magazine I have not made edits for them but I will surely disclose. RASSIOPEIA (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

And about Ivan Petricevic, I'm doing it for my personal interest in his writings, am I not allowed to edit except than paid ones? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I have disclosed all my paid edits nothing left, please let me know what else I have to do now? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Joe Roe per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:RASSIOPEIA hiding paid contributions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:00, 3 August 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.

Want to know

In page of Nurul Islam Jihadi, there is a voice of him in the info-box. Which I think was not appropriate thing to remain in wikipedia. Am I correct? Again the Waaz (voice) is not in public domain (no prove was there) What is the policy of this type of voice remaining? Ruhan (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ruhan:, the lecture is uploaded by someone who has most likely recorded it himself, so it doesn't need any PD license. Owais Al Qarni mentions it to be his "own work". ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

since it belongs to him; how he uploads it, is up to him. So, I don't think there's any problem. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@TheAafi: It is not his recording and I am quite sure because in Bangladesh islamic scholars generally gives speech before an ammount of people. that is called Waaz. And this waazs are generally being distributed by some media company which obviously contain copyright. ThankfullyRuhan (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur "Waaz" being an Urdu term that means a speech. But, lectures of such people are commonly attended by anyone, and I'd believe @Owais Al Qarni: having attended the lecture and recorded the audio. I've pinged the uploader, let's wait for his response. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I am doubtful that File:Nurul Islam Jihadi's Voice.ogg is Public Domain. Nurul Islam Jihadi most definitely owns the copyright for his own words and voice. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, this should definitely be treated as copyrighted. Recording someone's performance (whether it is a speech, a concert, ...) does not give you to the copyright to that speech or the right to publicly release it. This is, until evidence of the contrary appears, a bootleg recording and should be deleted. Fram (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• FYI, deletion discussion at Commons. Levivich 16:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Spam from Edmunds (company)

• edmunds.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Unathletic24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Bolivianpretzels (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Jhester24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

So, User:Unathletic24 just copped to being a COI editor for Edmunds--their edits clearly show what's going on, and what their MO is: inserting some brief and trivial comment about trim levels or speakers in some car model, like in this edit. They made dozens. User:Mr.choppers, who had reverted a few of those earlier, found another user doing the same thing, and I blocked User talk:Bolivianpretzels simply for spamming. Now, they all use the same citation format (CU cannot confirm they're the same person), which might well be the citation produced by some Refbot, including this, "Ford Fiesta Prices, Reviews, and Pictures {{!}} Edmunds". A quick search revealed that this kind of thing is all over the place: check it out. I cannot help but think that there's dozen of editors/accounts inserting the same shit in up to a hundred of car articles.

These are not valid citations. Edmunds is not an acceptable secondary source, and even if it could verify some wheel size or shiny ornament, the citations are just totally spammy. I bring this here as a kind of "for the record", and "for your attention", and because I'm a bit saddened. I guess there's no automated way to get rid of these links, but I do believe we should get rid of them. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, the "(car) prices, reviews, and pictures" format is probably just the title of the page they're linking to, autofilled by the doohickey where you plug in a link and it fills out as much of {{cite web}} as it can from the cited page's metadata. I've added a LinkSummary above and queued a COIBot run to see who's adding it - I'm not familiar with Edmunds, so it could well be that a lot of good-faith editors are adding it. If there's a few accounts pushing it, well, we know how to deal with that. And if it's almost exclusively being added by spammers, that's what the spam blacklist is for. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

COIBot didn't really want to give me a report (no surprise, it's got 10k+ additions tracked among the various wikis), so I threw a quick database dump here of who's added edmunds.com more than 20 times. I think this confirms our suspicions - Cluebot NG is behind everything! Really, though, it's not the best metric - reverting someone blanking a page that contained an edmunds link, for example, would count as an "addition" here. Also, these stats are crosswiki, because it's late here and I can't remember how to narrow this search by language. Anyway, we've got a couple spammers in here, but I think the overwhelming majority of additions are good-faith (or at least as good-faith as things get in the world of cars on Wikipedia). I will add that I'm dead certain Jhester24 (added above) and Unathletic24 are the same person, but no overlap in edits, so no sockpuppetry here. I do not believe either of them is the same person as Bolivianpretzels. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks--I appreciate it. User:Daniel.Cardenas, you warned Jhester24 earlier; that account has gone dormant but I'll block it as a spam-only account anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beetstra and @Versageek, what do you think about putting this website into User:XLinkBot, to discourage its addition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

While annoyed by these edits (and the company for presumably making them happen) I think Edmunds is often a reasonable and useful source for basic facts. I do not think that it ought to be listed anywhere at this moment. Perhaps there is someone who could be contacted at Edmunds?  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Firefly appointed trainee clerk

The Arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome Firefly (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

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

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Firefly appointed trainee clerk

Post-closure interventions at RfC

Hi, sysops. I've just encountered something outside my experience and I'm here for advice. Yesterday, I closed this discussion as "no consensus" (on the basis that a majority of 1 editor isn't a safe basis for any Wikipedian decision). Today, Sdkb added a post-closure comment to Template_talk:Fiction-based_redirects_to_list_entries_category_handler which would, if taken into account, reverse the outcome of the RfC, and Paine Ellsworth reopened the closure request on WP:CR. On the basis of my experience of these editors, I don't need to assume good faith because I'm quite confident of it, and so I'm rather minded to reverse the outcome. But I'm concerned that this might not be strictly in order. I think there are good reasons why discussions have an end date after which editors are asked to accept the outcome, and I don't want to start subverting that because we're creating a backdoor into every RfC: it means decisions aren't final. If you were in my place, what would you do?—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The RFC-in-question, was opened for 2 months. Those who missed out on it? tough luck. They snooze, they lose. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

But it was closed as no consensus, which means that continuing discussions to try and continue to establish a consensus is entirely reasonable. The people who lose out if we refuse to re-open the RFC aren't really the new people who arrive, it's the people who participated in the RFC (since their views are likely to be given less weight in followup conversations if they don't weigh in again.) A single no-consensus RFC clearly can't bar further discussion on the topic; at best it might raise the bar for consensus slightly, which means new opinions are always going to be considered in some form. (Really this is always true due to WP:CCC; any RFC could notionally be overturned the day after it closed if there was really, really compelling reason to believe that consensus on the page had suddenly flipped. In practice for an RFC with a clear outcome or really high participation the bar for this would be really high because part of the purpose of RFCs is to encourage stability and resolve discussions, but a no-consensus RFC with light participation doesn't have too much force behind it, so I don't think "we just finished discussing this, go away" is a valid tack to take in this case.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you accurately summarize the consensus reached (or in this case not reached) by the editors who participated in the discussion? I'm going to assume yes. It's hardly unusual for there to be a discussion following closure and if in this case the editors involved can find a consensus that hadn't been there before, that's great especially because of the no-consensus close. So in that sense I would re-open the discussion, and I would suggest the CR be marked as done but otherwise not sweat this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, pre-close that discussion didn't really have consensus - some support, some opposition, one "don't really care" argument, no argument clearly more convincing than the other and only a slight numerical imbalance if at all. S Marshall's summary seems like a fair summarization of the arguments. The RfC lasted over two months, enough time for folks to weigh in, so it wasn't prematurely closed. I think reopening or changing the close now that there are additional opinions is a reasonable move. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A few years ago, after closing RFCs, I was at least twice asked by editors if I would reopen the RFC so that they could insert a statement. At least once, I came to WP:AN and said that I was willing to treat the request as a challenge to my close, which was endorsed. What I inferred is that the editors who asked me to reopen the RFC after closure had been waiting for the close and were planning to make such a request, as a device to game the system. I have no idea how common this tactic is now. It differed from what is being described here in that there had been a rough consensus, and I had closed the RFC finding a rough consensus. But User:GoodDay says, "Those who missed out on it? tough luck." I don't think that they missed out on it because they were snoozing, but because they were playing a game. That is just a comment that may or may not be relevant in 2021. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

If it helps to keep the discussion here on topic, the reason I came across the discussion shortly after it closed was that I noticed the close on WP:CR and went to go check out what the discussion was.

With the caveat that I'm obviously an involved party, this discussion isn't one I'm invested in, so I may as well throw in my 2c. I think there's a big difference between a major contentious RfC and an obscure one with barely any participation (as was the case here). For major RfCs, it's important for our consensus system that they have a degree of finality, but for obscure ones, especially with no consensus closes, there's nothing set in stone just because someone places an archive box around them, and I don't see an issue with taking into consideration additional comments when we have them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The goal of an RfC is to gauge consensus, not to enforce bureaucratic rules. For some things (like arbcom elections), we strictly enforce deadlines, but this doesn't seem like one of those times. As you suggested you're willing to do, I'd reconsider your close. I don't think you would be wrong to reverse your close, but I think even better would be to just reopen the discussion, allow another week for additional comments, and let somebody else close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I don't think anyone here is suggesting that they do not trust User:S Marshall to close this discussion, whether now, or at some point in the future. - jc37 19:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I certainly have full faith in S Marshal's fairness and impartiality. It's a question of appearance. There are people who are looking for any excuse to object to a decision. By reclosing it yourself, you open the door to some yahoo making a fuss about it. Even if the objection is groundless, you waste a week arguing about it. Better to preemptively avoid that by stepping out of the way and letting somebody else re-close it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I could definitely use more input on this point. At the moment, the community seems to be saying to me that, in low-participation discussions that let to a no-consensus outcome, a closer is allowed to reverse their own close so as to permit another editor to !vote. But having reversed their close, the closer might then be disbarred from re-closing it?—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

per WP:ADMIN - "...an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." - If you are not involved, you can re-open and re-close a discussion which you have previously closed, as many times as you deem appropriate. - jc37 23:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Well it appears I was missing an important word in my response. I would not reopen the discussion formally. If a consensus can be found through subsequent discussion that too can be a form of consensus no RfC required. That said, if you think it best to re-open (and that's a very reasonable position) I agree with jc that you are not, by rule, barred from re-closing it. But if you take that path I agree with Roy that the best practice would be to let someone else close it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Asking for review before implementing the result of a close

I've just closed a somewhat contentious requested move ([43]), whose result in light of policy however appears to be clear to me. I'm generally involved in the topic area, but not on the specifics of this discussion. If anybody thinks I've erred in judgement, please feel free to give me a call (or your finest ton of bricks, depending on your stance). Anyways, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• I would advise against a closure by someone involved in the topic area.—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that it would be better for somebody not involved in the topic area to close it, especially since you did make 2 comments in that RM in replying to an IP. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  IP in question here, while I did feel "cut off" by the discussion being closed and would think it would be better if someone else had done it, I think the rationale written in the closure was very impartial and proper. 2600:1012:B02C:5704:B81B:8439:ADC6:C7CB (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Since I'm getting a somewhat contradictory reaction between here and my talk page, and since the only criticism is of the closer and not the close (I'll be more mindful in the future), I'm going to leave the close exactly as is. If anybody feels strongly enough that they want to add a secondary closing statement, feel free to do so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• Editors with subject knowledge are well suited to close discussions in their topic area. While the ideal impartial closer would have never said anything ever on the topic, RC's single substantive comment in the discussion doesn't strike me as serious enough to ignore WP:NOTBURO. It's an important discussion on a contemporary topic that befits a timely close, so I'll accept something slightly less than the platonic ideal of a closer. I appreciate that RC took initiative to keep discussion and article development moving. To the actual close, there's a pretty obvious consensus that "hypothesis" is not ideal. Of the two remaining titles---claims vs theory---I think the discussion does lean towards theory, but I think the close would be improved with more detailed discussion of why "claims" dis not achieve consensus. Editors were rather explicit about that title failing NPOV, and while others criticized "theory" on the basis of WP:PRECISION, NPOV has stronger consensus as a core policy (to the point that AT is written to comply with NPOV rather than the opposite). I think the rough consensus call was reasonable, but participants might want a second move discussion to clarify the relative weighting of policies identified in close. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
• I thought I had participated in this discussion but I don't see my name there now. Anyway, endorse close. It's very well rationalized and explained, certainly addresses the primary points raised by participants, and is a reasonable conclusion given all of that. I don't agree with Wugapodes about "claims": given the sourcing and the discussion it would clearly be a POV title. This is a highly controversial topic and perhaps shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin at all, and also probably shouldn't have been closed by someone who participated in the discussion even if they didn't really contribute substantively, but if those are the only reasons to fault the close then those reasons aren't valid (WP:NOTBURO). Well closed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Restarted AfD needing uninvolved editors to establish consensus

Hi all

This is a neutral notice inviting uninvolved editors and administrators to undertake an evaluation of the article Bmcabana SF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is currently at AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (2nd nomination).

The reason for this notice is that I took the unusual step of closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bmcabana SF (AFD #1) as a procedural close & restart. This was due to that discussion being unusable to find consensus, due to disruption caused by IP editors & other new accounts. The discussion was further affected by allegations of forged !votes, potential canvassing, and subsequently potential autobiographical concerns, which has made the whole situation even more of a mess.

I feel like this situation, and establishing consensus to 'keep' or 'delete' based on policy-oriented discussion, will be far easier the second time around if participation from experienced Wikipedia editors is higher than it was last time; hence me writing this post.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at the SPI and uncovered several connected accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thabo Daniels). Given the multiple recreations and gaming of ACPERM, I have closed the discussion as delete, removed the article, and blacklisted the title across all namespaces. Anyone is free to review my actions of course. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Help handling batch of redirects from User:T.cal.69

I just blocked a user that was batch destroying stubs with redirects -- is there a way to batch fix these? All the tools I am aware of, do it one at a time, Sadads (talk) 01:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js should be able to clean up this mess quite quickly, just bear in mind it only rolls back edits visible on the contributions page you have open. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sadads: Done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Sadads (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Do we need to revoke talk page access? Mjroots (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sadads it looks like you've blocked for a month. Given their behaviour (both the mass redirects, and the last few edits in their contribs), I'd be inclined to indef, rather than leave the door open for them to come back and cause more disruption in a few weeks. Don't want to tread on your toes though - what do you think? Girth Summit _(blether) 07:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Go for it, Sadads (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Where's Ashleyyoursmile?

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

---

I was wondering what Ashley had got up to since they passed RfA, went to look at their contributions, and got told "Ashleyyoursmile" is not registered on this wiki. Please check CentralAuth to see if it is registered on other wikis. If the reason for this disappearance is private and none of my business, fair enough, but I'm a bit concerned a recent and very popular RfA candidate appears to have vanished. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Ashleyyoursmile is now a redirect to Viridian Bovary. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 11 August 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.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § IP editing and Masked edits

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

---

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF) § IP editing and Masked edits. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• As a note since there was some confusion, the above is a RFC, not an Legal announcement. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

An administrator really should move the discussion to a more appropriate forum.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:16, 6 August 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.

Disruptive 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.

---

User:Cubhic124 is engaged in disruptive editing. Also, he labels IP contributions as "Azerbaijani vandalism". The user mislabels edits based on ethnicity, there's a clear battleground for the user here. What Cubhic124 called "Azerbaijani vandalism" was an IP revert of the obscure claim that Azerbaijan massacred its own people in Khojaly despite many reliable sources denying this. There are more examples of his disruptive behavior: 1, 2, 3, 4. He was warned, with no result. I don't think the user's contributions are in the same line with Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia guidelines. 185.81.80.200 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive vandalism

User:185.81.80.200, coming from the authoritarian and xenophobic state Azerbaijan, is conducting vandalistic edits. They are WP:NOTHERE to contribute to Wikipedia. Also, two IP addresses, 185.81.81.122, and 185.81.81.147, also from Baku, are conducting very similar edits, and I consider them to be sockpuppets. (Most of their edits have been reverted, so that indicates that they are not here to build a clean encyclopedia either). Cubhic124 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

1. This goes to ANI
2. Making reciprocal accusations of vandalism/sockpuppetry (dynamic IPs are not socks)/NOTHERE, without really attempting to discuss on the talk page, is unnecessary bad faith.

• Everybody should be given a DS notice/warning if that wasn't already the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 7 August 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:JimmyCrackedCorn wishes to return

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.

---

Heard on the grapevine via Reddit, that JimmyCrackedCorn (talk · contribs) wishes to return; he hasn't been here since 2005, IIRC.

Apparently, he regrets what he did in 2005 on here and wants to re-edit productively.

He regrets the Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy article and its debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy.

What should we do about this? --Kathanis92595 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW, he was never community-banned, just a one-shot user. --Kathanis92595 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Kathanis92595, who are you and why are you posting on behalf of banned other users? GiantSnowman 10:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm a throwaway account, and FWIW, JimmyCrackedCorn (talk · contribs) wasn't banned, he just can't access his account and apparently didn't attach email. I'm from another website/platform (well, sometimes, Reddit) where some former Wikipedians go (one's active at Reddit's /r/legaladvice and /r/personalfinance!) --Kathanis92595 (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Help:Logging in. GiantSnowman 11:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robeca5020. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this other post as well, either you are very keen to rehabilitate previous Wikipedians from various internet forums, or you are a troll. I'll give you three guesses what my money is on... --Jack Frost (talk) 11:45, 7 August 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.

Name censoring

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.

---

Farsi wiki admin Persia and other Iranians keeps censoring the name of Imam Khamenei international convention center even though i keep providing them link to website isf-icc.ir https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan_international_convention_center&action=history bi (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this happening on the English Wikipedia? If so, please link to diffs showing the edits and notify the users involved. If these edits are happening on another Wiki, we can do nothing about it. - Donald Albury 13:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isfahan_international_convention_center&diff=1037723745&oldid=1037723631 bi (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Censored name" is not a valid move rationale. Accusations of censorship are also unnecessary bad faith. If you think the current title is inadequate, and you have sources to back it up in light of our criteria for article titles, then you're free to start a regular requested move, as per the instructions on that page. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

you're not supposed to change the name bi (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

according to rules bi (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I haven't moved the article, only copy-edited the lead. ST47's suggestion to put it in title case seems more convincing, wherever this ultimately ends up. I've also put in a move protection request to prevent edit warring over this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 8 August 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:3RR

An editor Special:Contributions/223.190.37.149 is consciously engaged in a deliberate edit war regarding the same content within the page Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan). Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty Edit warring may be reported to the edit warring noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Help, in getting an editor to sign his/her posts correctly

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 help here. Can an administrator help instruct @Beatrix TBS:, in how to sign his/her posts? GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I tried. Enterprisey (talk!) 22:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Success! El_C 11:28, 10 August 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.

Jay Edwards (politician)

Hello, I am requesting an administrator to evaluate the edits at Jay Edwards (politician) made by SE45701. The editor claims on my talk page to be Jay Edwards himself: [44] (the editor has since removed the post here). Jerm (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm on my way to bed, but from a very quick skim, I think this needs careful evaluation. That the edits were made by someone purporting to be the subject is an issue; it is also an issue that much of the content they removed was added by an account called OppoResearcher, which edited exclusively political articles for a short space of time between August and October 2020. Something funny is going on. Girth Summit _(blether) 00:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Straight to 6-month AP2 ECP (logged). I've also asked OppoResearcher to disclose any conflict of interest with regards to their, erm, oppo research. El_C 11:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Neeraj Chopra

Three million views in a week. Cue caste-crusade! Please put it in your watchlists, and warn the editors who are violating WP:BLPRESTORE. Might help to have a message on the talk page that begins, "As an uninvolved administrator...", and possibly the BLP DS stuff? Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Overlap 5! El_C 11:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I've extended the protection length (my own) of the page, from 2 weeks to 2 months, as I highly doubt another ten days will do it. Perhaps semi won't do it, either, but we'll cross that bridge when [that's it, that's the end of the sentence]. El_C 11:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Heh! No duplication detector on RPP? Bishonen blocked two editors earlier, so I am expecting some peace until the socks get autoconfirmed. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Coming soon, right after a Cow Man spam filter (gotta prioritize), but hey, you do get bonus points (in my mind) for any additional overlap # — until some rude admin ruins your streak, that is. El_C 13:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

You're on thin fucking ice! El_C 14:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Happiness is a zero-sum game!! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

user:RTG

Is there some good reason talk page access was not removed after a community site-banned user wrote "I should not be allowed to edit this page. It is keeping me back from my therapy and tablets. Do you know how good tablets are these days? I could probably still get the really good ones you know,, Set me free again, thanks." [45]? All of the 5k of posts [46] subsequent to the site ban are a violation of WP:SBAN. I can understand letting banned editors vent a bit, but he has now claimed it's bad for his health and it certainly appears to me that he wants his talk page access removed. Give him his wish and let's be done with this. Meters (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I have done this. El_C 21:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A request to merge two categories

• @Davidgoodheart: In User talk:Anthony Appleyard#History Merge User:Davidgoodheart has asked me "Speaking of merging I think that the Category:Incidents of violence against girls and the Category:Incidents of violence against women should be merged into "Category:Incidents of violence against females". I have no idea how to do this, so could you please set it up for me. You can add this for me :Nominator's rationale: both girls and women are females so it makes sense to combine these categories. It will also make it easier to find information about violence against both girls and women as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)", but that would need editing the Category: line in hundreds of articles, and a job that size seems to need a bot. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Usually we do this at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, a justification is needed, but if it is valid and unopposed, the merge will be performed in 48h--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Help cleaning up a block template, please

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

---

Template:Uw-causeblock has a problem: it says the stuff about usernames such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Foundation" being permitted twice (as if the template wasn't long enough without repetitions). I just cleaned it up on a usertalk where I had placed it. But editing the template itself baffled me when I tried it. Somebody fix, please? Bishonen | tålk 12:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC).

I removed the redundant part but left the verbosity. I once tried to remove the pronunciation of "the 4400" but was reverted. On that day, I realized that it's pointless to try to improve the writing on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:49, 10 August 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.

Reinstate full editing benefits

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

Good afternoon. Last October my editing priviledges were limited on Wikipedia. The parameters of my priviledges were that I could only edit or create pages on subjects who were deceased or business or entities that were defunct. I have adhered to these guidelines since then and was hoping that I could now get my full priviledges to edit all Wikipeda subjects. I believe the original accusations may have been misguided, but I learned from the experience about possible COI and am ready to move forward in an unbiased manner. I love Wikipedia writing and would love to do more. Please let me know if this is possible.EllenZoe (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The restriction in place against EllenZoe is a prohibition on editing about any attention seeking entity - no BLPs, no companies, products, bands, non-profits, etc unless defunct. This was imposed as an unblock condition following a block for covert advertising. The administrator imposing the condition at the time stated that Because of this, the conditions of the conditional unblock have to be indefinite; you may be able to appeal at some point in the future, but only after demonstrating significant positive contributions within the parameters of the conditional unblock. Since then, they have written a few articles from scratch - I'm not sure I would classify it as "significant", but it doesn't seem to be UPE. Pinging @MER-C: and @Rosguill: as the administrators involved in the original block. ST47 (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is a slightly odd combo - only 150 edits or so since the imposition, but 4 decent start-class articles. Hmm. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Previous appeal: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive332#My block removed, please. Too soon since then in terms of contributions. MER-C 08:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note - EllenZoe pinged admin Rosguill (who I won't ping again) here and they politely responded saying they didn't have on-WP time enough to review it themselves. They suggested coming here. But they were able to comment in the last thread linked to above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
• Maybe WP:ROPE is appropriate with a warning that anything that appears to be recidivism is unlikely to be AGF'd. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent proxy blocks

As some folks may have noticed, there has been a major uptick in short open proxy blocks by ST47ProxyBot lately. Now that the block infrastructure is in place, it's time for some explanation. We have had a lot of issues lately with a type of proxy called a "peer-to-peer" or "residential" proxy. In short, unlike normal VPNs (where your internet traffic goes into a datacenter somewhere and is forwarded from there to its destination), peer-to-peer proxies route traffic through normal peoples' internet connections. Some of these are known to the person doing the proxying (for example, some services route traffic through all of their users) while others might not be (compromised devices or shady smartphone apps can turn you into an exit point). Since these exit points are mostly on residential networks, they tend to have rather dynamic IPs, so we can't always perform long blocks on them. A small group of editors has recently been given access to a data feed from Spur ([spur.us]) that identifies IPs belonging to some peer-to-peer proxy services, and this data feed is being used to hardblock these proxies both on enwiki and globally. What you need to know:

• These proxies have been a huge issue. I don't want to go into too much detail here per WP:BEANS (though I'm happy to email trusted editors with additional details), but we have had a lot of issues with very nasty folks using these proxies. I have personally dealt with some of them editing as IPs, and I believe the checkuser team can confirm that they have seen abusive accounts using these services. Until now, we've always been reacting - blocking an IP after the fact. Now, we are able to block these IPs before they are abused.
• It's hard to identify these proxies. A lot of existing proxy detection tools won't be able to identify these endpoints as belonging to peer-to-peer proxy services. If you think that one of these blocks was made by mistake, contact a CheckUser or make a request at WP:WPOP (checkusers and several WPOP members have access to a service that can identify them), but we are very confident in our data source here.
• We trust the data. Some proxy-detection services are well-known at WP:WPOP for being questionably reliable. In this case, we have worked directly with Spur to develop a detection method and have spot-checked results ourselves.
• There will be teething issues. This has been a quick turnaround effort to deal with a major uptick in abuse. We've done a lot of monitoring and sanity checks, but nothing is perfect the first go-round. We will be actively keeping an eye on everything and fixing issues as they come up.
• There will be a lot of churn in these blocks. The nature of residential proxies means that devices will move around and dynamic IPs will be dynamic IPs. This means that the blocks will necessarily be short (though the bot can do escalating block durations when it sees proxies pop up on the same IP multiple times) and that something that was marked as a proxy one day might not be a proxy a couple days later.
• There will be some collateral damage. It's unfortunate, but it's true. Some people may not be aware they have one of these proxies running on their internet connection. Some Internet Service Providers use Carrier-grade_NAT (basically, multiple customers behind one IP), so if one customer on a given IP is running a peer-to-peer proxy, a block will affect everyone on that IP. This is nothing new - that's how blocks normally work - but given the scale of the blocks here, there will be an uptick in legitimate editors impacted by this. Editors who are trying to make accounts but are affected by this should be directed to WP:ACC, and existing editors who are affected should request WP:IPBE from the checkuser team (and probably m:GIPBE from the steward team). This will be the source of most "false positives".

Finally, I'd like to give out a lot of kudos. In no particular order: thanks to Blablubbs and MarioGom for getting this effort moving and getting us the data feed, ST47 for quickly integrating the data feed into their proxy-blocking bot, Tks4Fish for getting these blocks applied at the global level, and L235 and TheresNoTime for interfacing with the CheckUser team as we figure this out. I would also like to extend a heartfelt thank-you to the folks at Spur - we've worked closely with them throughout this process and they have provided amazing support. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is cool! I look forward to seeing how the partnership develops and thank everyone for their work on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• A wholehearted thank you to everyone involved in this mitigation process. Mz7 (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Many thanks all around! I was indeed wondering why there were suddenly proxy-blocks on so many IPs that have not been actively editing. DMacks (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Awesome work! These proxies have indeed been a huge issue, and I wholeheartedly look forward to seeing how this goes. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• I've spoken about residential proxies a bunch and if this works that's quite incredible, since residential proxies are usually considered a problem that can't really be dealt with. Nice work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• There are times when I'm amazed to see what my colleagues are getting up to in the background. This is one of those times. This looks like it has taken a great deal of patient work by the people involved, and represents an important contribution to keeping this a safe space for our contributors. Thanks very much to everyone involved. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Good work everybody. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Sensational work, thanks to all those involved. Dealing with rubbish eventually wears out content creators and preventing abuse is very important. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Good work Jeepday (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Kudos to all --S Philbrick(Talk) 11:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
• Thanks a lot. I have a technical question though I see that the bot blocked today 86.52.135.60 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), presumably one of the pool. I have this IP on my watchlist, because I had to protect in January Talk:Tbilisi against their disruptive edits. I see, however, that this IP was editing the same page previously, on the same day, as 77.213.98.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 47.37.142.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 86.52.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 79.114.104.220 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). None of them is blocked. Does this mean that the same person was using in the same editing session an open proxy and a normal IP? I thought this is impossible.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• No, they were probably on proxies, although it is often very easy to switch between proxy and non-proxy. These particular types of proxy usually have a very short lifespan, sometimes just hours. You've just spotted one that is more persistent or recurrent than most. I think a lot of us are seeing these. The others will no longer be active. Also thanks everyone involved. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I see, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't know the technical details of how the Proxy Whose Name We're Not Supposed To Utter does things, but switching IPs is, in general, pretty easy. I just made two edits to User:RoySmith/sandbox using different IPs. In my case, I just switched between using my cable modem WiFi and my phone hotspot. Just a couple of clicks in a control panel. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. But five IPs would mean five wifi/cables, which seems to me a bit 2 much. However, if we do not need to block these Ips I am perfectly fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Are the block messages and templates clear enough about how a prospective or existing editor suffering from collateral damage can apply for an unblock or IPBE? Can you link to an example? Deryck C. 15:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  These blocks use {{Blocked p2p proxy}}. MarioGom (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Several Questions - Why are we using a third-party closed-source service instead of using the free tiers of residential VPNs and proxies to create our own published open data set? I did a quick search for residential VPN reviews and see that there are at least a dozen recommended by apparently neutral third parties, advertising ten to hundreds of millions of residential IPs (presumably their customers? Or contractors paid to run their proxy servers?) each. Apparently most of this use is to avoid geographic restrictions on video streaming services, but they also are used to avoid political repression, far more than block evasion as far as I can tell. I have no doubt that they are used for abuse, but I would like to know more about the extent of the "recent uptick" and again, I question using a closed-data vendor instead of the free (i.e., non streaming-level bandwidth, presumably) options to automatically scan the exit addresses for an open data set. Spur claims to track "over 25 proxy services," but what proportions of the hundreds of millions of exit addresses do they actually report? I have a hard time believing that this effort isn't just the latest round in an arms race aligning Wikipedia with the worst oppressive regimes. Are we paying Spur? If so how much and for how much coverage proportionally? Has a professional ethicist been consulted? If we actually attempt to block hundreds of millions of individual IP addresses, many of which are not going to be static, what is the load on the database? 107.242.121.39 (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Hello. Do you have any connection to Nrcprm2026/James Salsman? They have quite the history of logged-out socking on the (relatively narrow) range you're on, both here and on meta. In any case: Replies, with some questions bundled and in no particular order:
    • Obtaining data ourselves is very resource-intensive for technical reasons and would require a significant infrastructure investment because of the way these services function. The option has been explored, and proven to be infeasible. Shodan-esque bulk fingerprinting does not enable us to identify end nodes.
    • The extent of the recent uptick is large, and there are number of logged-in LTAs using these services as well.
    • It's true that people are using these services for legitimate purposes, but that also applies to things like TOR and non-P2P VPN services, which we also block. People with legitimate reasons for using anonymisers can apply for proxy IP block exemption.
    • We are not blocking hundreds of millions of addresses, we are blocking a tiny fraction of that – we are targeting specific services with an established history of severe abuse. The numbers are in the ten thousands.
    • I struggle to understand how any of this puts us in line with oppressive regimes, or why anyone would have to hire an ethicist; m:NOP and WP:NOP have been policy for a long time. The services we're blocking are functioning as open proxies.
    • There is internal agreement among the people working on the implementation that divulging the exact details of feed coverage and operation is counterproductive; this is in line with our handling of existing proxy-blocking mechanisms, such as the conventional open proxy blocks performed by ST47ProxyBot. The coverage is good enough to have made a noticeable difference since we've started this, and it will get better over time.
    • Our exact arrangement with Spur is currently being worked out. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

    I know Salsman, and recommend WP:DENY. I disagree with your opinion on the reasonableness of consulting an ethicist on these and larger issues, but I am relieved by the smaller magnitude of the problem. 107.242.121.31 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    For what it's worth: if someone is using a P2P proxy service in a country with significant repression associated to online surveillance, please, stop doing it right now. A P2P proxy service will inevitably convert your device into an exit node used for cybercrime, and that can put you at risk. Please, be safe, and use battle-tested solutions, be it shadowsocks, wireguard VPNs, Tor with private bridges, or whatever is considered a safer choice nowadays. MarioGom (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Kailash29792 doing bizarre things with sock-drafts

I've tried to get a reasonable explanation from Kailash29792 for their actions regarding a bunch of sock-created drafts (see User talk:RoySmith#Deleted soundtracks and WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Satish Raman Nair) but they keep avoiding giving any useful answers. Reluctantly I now bring the case here where they will have a greater incentive to explain what they're doing. Kailash29792 has an exceptionally long editing history, so I'm willing to extend a fair bit of AGF to them, but there are limits. The gist is, they:

• Asked me on my talk page to restore a bunch of drafts I had G5'd, which I declined
• Found two more drafts which they claim (quite possibly correctly) were created by the same sock
• Copy-pasted the drafts to mainspace
• Nominated the drafts for deletion at MfD with the argument that they are block evasion
• After I deleted their mainspace copies, withdrew their nominations
• Proceeded to edit the drafts, arguing that this makes them G5-proof
• Made requests to investigate other editors as socks

I honestly don't think they're a sock, but what they're doing is bizarre and contrary to multiple policies. Despite repeated attempts by Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe and myself to get them to slow down and explain what's going on, they just keep charging ahead in a befuddling case of WP:IDHT. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe what they are trying to do is to be credited as the creator of the sock drafts. Would some sort of partial block, such as a block from any use of draft space, protect against mischief? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

No. Perhaps the only thing I can do is walk away from this. I don't want anything anymore except for the drafts to be accepted into the mainspace, especially Draft:Nadhigalile Neeradum Suriyan. I do not even want to be credited as the creator of those drafts; let Satish be. And whether you finally expose his latest IP is of least concern to me. Though Satish resorting to socking irks me like it does for many, he's a brilliant editor. And I was helping him all the while without knowing he was using a sock. But I apologise for everything that happened; all I wanted was to not get caught for abetting Satish without realising his socking, and became frightened when Roy deleted those other soundtrack articles because Satish created them. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• I won't lie I'd done things in the past here which I thought were okay and then turned out not to be so I can sort of sympathise with Kailash.... I don't believe they're a sock either and I don't believe they were trying to do anything maliciously here - just maybe wanted to preserve and rewrite the articles but just went about it the completely wrong way. The SPI tho IMHO was OTT. –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think that Kailash29792 was just trying to save the sock-created content like Draft:Nadhigalile Neeradum Suriyan because its too good to be discarded. The process of copy-pasting from the draft was definitely bizzare. As Kailash apologized for it, perhaps a promise can be taken from them not to repeat it again. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for understanding me. Now I want nothing to do with Satish creating new articles via sock IPs. But if the draft he creates is too great, I cannot help but develop it further. Since Nadhigalile Neeradum Suriyan was retitled Vendhu Thanindhadhu Kaadu, I have moved it to that title (still in the draftspace), I hope it is accepted without taking into account that a sock created it, but because I substantially edited it. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Request review of own IPBE

A while back, I was given IPBE rights as the internet security my work was using on our computers caused my traffic to be routed through various blocked IP addresses. We have since switched to a new security system for web browsing, so I don't know if the IPBE is necessary anymore. I also could find no explanation on WP:IPBE on how a user who already has IPBE can request a review of whether that permission will continue to be necessary, which would need to be done by a checkuser who can see what IP addresses I am editing from and whether they are blocked. I found how I can request IPBE in the first place, but that is not what I am trying to do. I would assume I should do something if I become aware the IPBE may no longer be necessary (and it might not be, but I honestly don't know, I'd need a CU to check) but it isn't entirely clear what. So I'm posting here, first, so that check can be done, and second, so the process can be clarified for the future. Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: well you don't have IPBE now - so if you can edit without issue on the networks you usually use, you should be fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Gosh, has it been that long? I know it was granted for a year. My how time flies. But yeah, looks like you're right and it expired July 20, right after we switched to the new system. Timing worked out well I guess. Smartyllama (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Cewbot

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.

---

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

Could an admin please block this bot? It has gone berserk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I blocked the bot and reported the problem on the operator talk page; everybody may unblock once the problem is fixed or if it turns out that the bot was doing something I was not able to appreciate.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:29, 13 August 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.

FYI hijacked sites and citation bot

Just to let people know that numbers of sites that we have used for years, eg. leighrayment.com, have been taken over by gambling sites. Then user:citation bot has gone through and updated all the refs to contain the spam text. I have left a message with the bot owner about possible means to avoid this, though we are still going to have a whole lot of stuff to clean up. I have lodged a request to have the ref links nullified. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I know the site isn't considered a totally reliable source and had been dormant since Mr Rayment's death in 2019 but it does appear that the pages have been archived at http://ukelections.info/leigh_rayment/index.html. Nthep (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW a search of what we face https://global-search.toolforge.org/?q=%22Slots+Online%22 — billinghurst sDrewth 13:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone has blacklisted the domains. I'm sure this was done in good intention, but it's a bad idea for a couple reasons, and not how we normally handle hijacked domains. Because of the blacklist, my bot is unable to edit the articles to add |archive-url= and |url-status=usurped. This is how it's normally done. I'm ready to usurpify the domains, but the blacklist would need to be lifted. Ping if/when ready. -- GreenC 14:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: This domain not blacklisted; temporarily whitelisted the other. The other needed to be blacklisted globally as the spambots were trying to add it, and was done prior to the greater exploration. leighrayment was found when exploring the situation. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will follow up at WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 03:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

"[Mark this page as patrolled]"

Has anyone noticed that the "[Mark this page as patrolled]" link is now bigger in size and is now left-justified at the bottom of an unpatrolled page instead of right-justified? It looks like this change just happened. What got modified and where? Why? I liked where the link was before... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

You appear to have got off lightly - I had my entire skin replaced. It's WP:THURSDAY and mw:MediaWiki_1.37/wmf.18. Strange things usually happen on Thursdays, not all of which is planned or permanent. You might want to look into some CSS. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Zzuuzz - Yeah... I figured that might be the case... Wait, you had your entire skin replaced? What skin are you using? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems to depend on the day. No worries it was probably just a temporary thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to have my skin replaced, too, this one's all wrinkly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

zzuuzz, is this some Kdaptist thing? Drmies (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the stuff we have content about, and that people even know about, never ceases to amaze. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I learned from the best. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Larry Niven is so awesome that other awesome writers give his works a satire homage. And he's cool about it. Just re-read a Hebrew translation of Lucifer's Hammer last month. Had a great time (again). El_C 16:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Oshwah, I've noticed when going to a page, in this case, user talk pages, that haven't been created yet, there is a graphic in the lower right-hand corner and a statement welcoming me to edit. Not sure when that element started but it's not like WMF give a head's up when they make changes.

I also noticed the left-justified "Mark this page as patrolled" on User pages and that the message still appears on pages even after several editors have edited it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

And I thought someone had modified our local CSS. Hm.
Regarding your observation, Liz, I think as far as the creator of the page was not autopatrolled, the resulting page will remain unpatrolled until someone manually clicks that link. I've been doing so for years, but I'm afraid the benefit of patrolling user talk pages, sockpuppetry investigations and deletion discussions is low. The main result is a permanent view tracking log... Not sure if that's a good thing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Heh, I do the same thing! Also, some patrolling there is actually useful - particularly with template-space and standalone project-space (if only subpages could be excluded easily). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My Conduct Thus Far

Following an ANI discussion wherein a user reported me for not keeping off their talk page, I took responsibility and decided not to post on their Usertalk anymore. The report against me resulted in a boomerang , but I promised to stand by my word and I have respected my promise to both myself and the community to not post on their TP anymore, Today I was in the process of leaving them a template(not a personal message) when i realized I didn’t know how Templates and voluntary IBANs work, I guess my question is; do templates violate the “voluntary” IBAN ? Especially if it’s a very imperative warning. Celestina007 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Your questions is fairly confusing. Being asked to stay off someone's talk page is not the same thing as a voluntary iban. If someone asks you to stay off their talk page you should respect that without being dragged to ANI, but it only affects the talk page. A voluntary iban affects all interactions throughout Wikipedia. That said, in either case, the only reasonable exception to posting on the editor's talk page, is posting a mandatory notification when you are bringing them to one of the noticeboards. Even then, it may be better to simply note when you open the thread that you won't be giving the notification given the ban/request and ask for someone else to do so. There is no such thing as an imperative warning, especially not one that only you can give. If no one else notices the problem and feels the need to warn the editor, then you should just let it be. If you've simply been asked to stay away from the editor's talk page then if the editor's behaviour requires administrative action or discussion somewhere, you are free to open a thread wherever relevant like you normally would and explain why you didn't talk to them first. But if you have a iban, you shouldn't be looking at the editor's edits unless they directly affected you, and you shouldn't be complaining about their behaviour which doesn't directly relate to their iban (assuming it's a 2 way). Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, no, I have no IBAN, that’s a lexical error on my part I only promise myself to respect their wishes and not post on tp anymore. As for the “imperative warning” I used it because it contained “information censorship” I have no IBAN none whatsoever sorry for the misunderstanding. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: well without an iban if you feel the removal of some information from an article or page was inappropriate, I'm not sure I see a reason why this would belong on the editor's talk page. Just bring it up on the article talk page and wait for the editor to respond, concentrating of course on why you feel the information shouldn't have been removed rather than any alleged wrongdoing of the editor in doing so which is IMO generally the right course of action anyway. If they don't, then either ping them (assuming they didn't ask you not to) or revert their edit mentioning the talk page discussion. If the editor persistently refuses to join the discussion on the talk page but keeps reverting your attempts to add back the removed info, bring them up on a notice board mentioning your attempts to discuss on the page talk page and that you couldn't approach the editor directly to ask them to join the talk page discussion given the request. If the editor is edit warring requiring a block, I think any editor who can think of asking someone to stay away from their talk page probably knows enough that they can't reasonably claim to be unaware of our edit warring requirements if you explain why you couldn't give a warning. But anyway, even if an admin feels that despite your dilemma, the editor still needs a warning first and so gives them one as a result of your AN/EW thread, this doesn't seem to be major harm to me. If it's a DS case then okay yes until someone gives them the necessary notification or they're otherwise aware, then no action can be taken but if it's reached the level where you feel action under DS would be justified, you can surely open an AN or ANI thread about the editor mentioning it's a DS area but there's been no notification yet because you couldn't give one. Technically this could result in action outside the DS process, more likely it'll just be someone giving the required notification. In this case, I can understand why it's frustrating. Still it seems respecting the request is still the right thing to do even without an ANI and that sort of situation can arise in a lot of cases even without a request getting in the way of notification. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, thanks for painstakingly clarifying things for me. I appreciate it. Celestina007 (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, best to just link to who it is and explain the reason for the intended warning. I, for one, am totally lost. El_C 21:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@El_C don’t be “lost” it’s too early for that lol, however myself and the third party have reached a compromise. Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 done go night night? El_C 21:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

🙃 Celestina007 (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Georgewelles2021's vandalism

User:Georgewelles2021 won't stop mass-deleting/edit warring/vandalizing content on several articles (When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, Don't Smile at Me, Nicole da Silva etc.) despite several warnings; you can take a look into their user talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BawinV (talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not actually vandalism, but the user has never discussed their changes, so I think a WP:ICANTHEARYOU block is warranted, which I've done. For future reference, reports like this should be on WP:ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Confusing/contradictory split discussions

Hi admins, there are currently two split discussions taking place concurrently:

• Split Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan into a new, separate article titled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). ➡️ Link to discussion.
• Split portions of Taliban into Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. ➡️ Link to discussion.

Both these proposal have been made boldly by inexperienced editors, so it's not exactly clear how they interact with one another or what would happen if both closed with support. I have no idea what is the proper way to handle this, so I figured I would bring it to the attention of this noticeboard. Thanks. JBchrch talk 21:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I proposed closing the second discussion and reopening it after the first one closes Talk:Taliban. JBchrch talk 22:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Both discussion are on high-visibility pages so they are getting quite a lot of !votes. JBchrch talk 08:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents should not be brought for pure content disputes, as complex as this one may be. They're both highly watched pages, and other than continuing the discussion (which I have), I don't think anything needs to be discussed here, though I know this was brought in good faith of anticipated clusterfuckery. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC) (Moved comment further down)

The fact these discussions happened at the same time created confusion over how close we are to consensus, but the two discussions are very similar in nature. I have an idea as to move forward with things.

• We have nearly reached a consensus in favor of the merge in "Split portions of Taliban into Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" ➡️ Link to discussion
• There is significant opposition to "Split Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan into a new, separate article titled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)" ➡️ Link to discussion based on the precedent set by how the Islamic State of Afghanistan is structured since it is the closest parallel to the situation we have now, as well as many other arguments.

• I propose the support for the merge in the near consensus be considered as opposition to the other discussion since that decision being fulfilled is contingent on the split being denied. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents should not be used for pure content disputes, as complex as these may be. They're both highly watched pages, and other than continuing the discussion (which I have), I don't think anything needs to be discussed here, though I know this was brought in good faith of anticipated clusterfuckery. I propose closing this discussion and continuing on the respective talk pages. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Shushugah: This is WP:AN, not WP:ANI. JBchrch talk 10:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Redacted, sorry for creating confusion! Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Georgewelles2021's vandalism

User:Georgewelles2021 won't stop mass-deleting/edit warring/vandalizing content on several articles (When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?, Don't Smile at Me, Nicole da Silva etc.) despite several warnings; you can take a look into their user talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BawinV (talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not actually vandalism, but the user has never discussed their changes, so I think a WP:ICANTHEARYOU block is warranted, which I've done. For future reference, reports like this should be on WP:ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Confusing/contradictory split discussions

Hi admins, there are currently two split discussions taking place concurrently:

• Split Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan into a new, separate article titled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001). ➡️ Link to discussion.
• Split portions of Taliban into Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. ➡️ Link to discussion.

Both these proposal have been made boldly by inexperienced editors, so it's not exactly clear how they interact with one another or what would happen if both closed with support. I have no idea what is the proper way to handle this, so I figured I would bring it to the attention of this noticeboard. Thanks. JBchrch talk 21:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, I proposed closing the second discussion and reopening it after the first one closes Talk:Taliban. JBchrch talk 22:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Both discussion are on high-visibility pages so they are getting quite a lot of !votes. JBchrch talk 08:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents should not be brought for pure content disputes, as complex as this one may be. They're both highly watched pages, and other than continuing the discussion (which I have), I don't think anything needs to be discussed here, though I know this was brought in good faith of anticipated clusterfuckery. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC) (Moved comment further down)

The fact these discussions happened at the same time created confusion over how close we are to consensus, but the two discussions are very similar in nature. I have an idea as to move forward with things.

• We have nearly reached a consensus in favor of the merge in "Split portions of Taliban into Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan" ➡️ Link to discussion
• There is significant opposition to "Split Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan into a new, separate article titled Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (1996–2001)" ➡️ Link to discussion based on the precedent set by how the Islamic State of Afghanistan is structured since it is the closest parallel to the situation we have now, as well as many other arguments.

• I propose the support for the merge in the near consensus be considered as opposition to the other discussion since that decision being fulfilled is contingent on the split being denied. --The Gentle Sleep (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents should not be used for pure content disputes, as complex as these may be. They're both highly watched pages, and other than continuing the discussion (which I have), I don't think anything needs to be discussed here, though I know this was brought in good faith of anticipated clusterfuckery. I propose closing this discussion and continuing on the respective talk pages. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Shushugah: This is WP:AN, not WP:ANI. JBchrch talk 10:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Redacted, sorry for creating confusion! Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

User Ethiopian Expressway's contributions

User:Ethiopian Expressway (talk) is repeatedly attempting to recreate the promotional article Ethiopian Toll Roads Enterprise which I have speedy deleted twice. The article currently sits in draftspace at Draft:Ethiopian Toll Roads Enterprise. This account is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and is trying to promote a company, as proven by the username and recent contributions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 04:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• You're probably right, but I'm erring on the side of caution. I've placed a {{uw-paid}} warning on their talk page. They made one edit after that, but it may have caught the editor in passing. They've not edited since. I deleted their latest attempt to get an article on Ethiopian Toll Roads Enterprise, and will salt it if they try again. It appears that they have stopped editing for now. The name "Ethiopian Expressway" could conceivably just be a person who is interested in the project, and not a paid representative of the companies related to Ethiopian expressways. Yes, it's a small chance. But, let's see. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• And another administrator blocked them. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nazi Party flag instead of articles

As I write, the article Joe Biden displays nothing but a swastika. It's a vandalism on one of the templates, I cut out the first few sections of the article, and that displays correctly. If anyone can spot the template vandalism faster, go for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing a huge Nazi Party flag instead of the article about Robert De Niro and I suspect that is not intended. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

That was vandalism in Template:Wbr (which I just reverted). --Hoo man (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Strange template. You can't make it into a 'redirect' or edit it, at all. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hoo man, I am still seeing it at Robert De Niro. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

You can't even revert it. Perhaps, it's a potential virus. Heck, ya can't find out 'who' created & put it there. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Changes to templates this will take some time to propagate to all articles that use them. If needed, this can be forced by purging the pages in question (see mw:Manual:Purge). Cheers, Hoo man (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Now it's been reverted & the article's history doesn't show it's being reverted or who reverted it. VERY STRANGE indeed. GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, It won't do, because the article hasn't changed. The template has. Look at the history of Template:Wbr now. I've template-protected the template and blocked the vandal. This is not some fly-by vandal, the template was already semi-protected, which requires making a few good faith edits and waiting a while before doing the "payload". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thank goodness the vandalising editor has been caught & banned. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

And I was wondering why the heck are there so many people reporting about swastikas in #wikipedia-en-help. I thought it was a troll effort at first, since I only looked at the affected articles after the template vandalism was reverted... pandakekok9 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: you can use the "Related Changes" link in the sidebar to pull all the changes for that page and templates used on that page. It's generally the fastest way to discover which template was vandalised. stwalkerster (sock | talk) 14:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The other approach is to go to recent changes and set it to the template namespace.©Geni (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Weird, @Xylophonist: was doing alright, his first day on Wikipedia (August 10) & then suddenly, after a six-day break, he goes off the rails. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, they did exactly 10 edits and then waited a few days so that they would get autoconfirmed. Standard sock behavior AFAICT. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

They were doing also very gnomish edits (adding a short description and likely using some list/category that lists articles w/o short descriptions, alphabetically) to get there. That's the same type of abuse some editors were doing around the time of Gamergate and the 500 edits/30 day restrictions (doing 500 gnomish edits). Unfortuntely the 10 edits thing seems to be a server-based thing and not something we can easily change ourselves w/o WMF tech help. We should expect more of these types of "sleeper attacks" on semi-protected areas. --Masem (t) 14:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Hang around long enough on NPP or CAT:CSD and you'll spot some one of these creating spam. We need all high-profile templates to be TEMPLATE EDITOR protected, not semi. MusikAnimal, your bot is very helpful, but could it be changed to do this? I think what you'd need is to count the total number of page views on all transclusions, rather than just the number of transclusions full stop. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 It only protects unprotected templates. This was partly due to the fact there was no clear consensus to elevate protection levels. I had intended to bring this back up for discussion at some point, just never got around to it. I assume this instance is enough to show this functionality is both desirable and needed, so I'll get to coding… — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

As an aside, I've template editor protected Template:Soft hyphen, which is linked to the above template. It's already been vandalised in the same manner, and was duly protected due to identical vandalism to this, but reverted some time later with the comment "Template does not have high number of transclusions, and there is not a high risk of vandalism.", which I think most editors reading this thread might disagree with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

A template that has at least 1000 transclusions must be template-protected at least. We can't afford yet another incident like this. There are already "journalists" who wrote articles that Wikipedia got "hacked". Heck, one of them even tried to contact the WMF! pandakekok9 (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Hours after I protected Swastika Dutta — tin foil hat mode activate! El_C 15:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• I didn't realize templates used on tens of thousands of pages weren't template-protected as a matter of course. Something that can vandalize 53,000 pages at once seems like a big gap in security. —valereee (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  The vast majority of such templates are, I have no idea how this one slipped through. Far more risky are template redirects, which still can have hundreds of transclusions without being protected (and have no reason to not be protected as well, there's not really much editing to do on a redirect is there). Elli (talk | contribs) 16:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I just tprotected two WP:HRTs, one with 13,000 (Template:Trim brackets) and another with 168,000 (Template:Str letter) transclusions, by way of RfPP. Maybe a more systemic way to identify these HRTs exists or can be invented...? El_C 17:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

    It's a pretty hard problem to solve. There are certain situations (I've compiled a whole list here) where MediaWiki can't adequately keep track of how heavily transcluded a template is—or, importantly, how heavily transcluded it could become with just a few subtle changes to unprotected pages. If we want to 100% avoid this kind of thing, we'd need an adminbot that can do some pretty sophisticated analysis of the logic in templates to find these weaknesses. There's also a lot of ways that a clever attacker could basically build in a "ticking time bomb" where the payload, when delivered, wouldn't show up in RelatedChanges or RecentChanges. That would also require an adminbot to get around, in this case one that would make it impossible to deploy those payloads. (Any admin can email me for a full threat analysis. This is something I've been thinking about for a while now.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Like. El_C 18:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This brought back memories of Ed Miliband in 2015.[47] As I said at the time, autoconfirmed isn't good enough for high profile templates.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This seems like as good a time as any to say: Fuck you, Hitler! El_C 22:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hitler Has Only Got One Ball should be a TFA. Levivich 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C @Tamzin Later tonight I'm going to push out an update to my bot that should prevent this from happening moving forward. Before I didn't think the queries my bot uses would have been efficient enough to do what we want, but I believe they are now, following the 2020 replicas redesign. There also wasn't clear consensus for this functionality, but I am safely assuming there is now :) Long story short, don't sweat it. We can and will prevent this kind of vandalism from happening again. A native MediaWiki solution is tracked at phab:T237814. See also Special:AbuseFilter/600 (intentionally log-only), which has been tweaked in response to today's events. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a couple edge cases I've got in mind; I'll email you. :) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 20:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Simply clicking Edit on Joe Biden and searching the bottom of the page for "semi-protected" shows twenty eight template pages and lua module pages that (as I understand it) could allow this to happen again. Checking usage counts with this seems to indicate that each of those templates is only used a few thousand times. But that's still a lot. Leijurv (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• So it seems there's pretty clear consensus here to TPE protect all templates above a certain number of transclusions, and I'd assume there's probably also a lower threshold over which we'd want to semi-protect all templates. Does anyone want to throw out specific numbers that we might agree on? (MusikAnimal, particularly interested to hear from you on this, as it sounds like you're the one working on this from the technical end. The Wikipedia:High-risk templates page states a bot automatically template-protects pages with over 5000 transclusions and semi-protects pages with over 500 transclusions, and that a 2018 RfC identified rough consensus to permanently semiprotect templates with at least around 200-250 transclusions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Sdkb Let's discuss below (sorry for fragmenting). I'd like to see ECP in the picture, which I think @Johnuniq is hinting at as well. The 2018 RfC predates the bot, so what we decided on in the January 2019 bot proposal might have precedence, but I'm certainly fine with changing the config to 250 for semi. — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps the protection policy should be revisited? WP:TPROT says that template-editor protection should be used only on Wikipedia:High-risk templates templates and modules and WP:ECP has similar weasle-wording. Wikipedia:High-risk templates#Relevant discussions points to decisions in Feb 2018 and Dec 2016. In the past I have handled some requests for protection and hated the fact that WP:TPROT gives pathetic guidance and WP:ECP pretty well rules out using ECP for a template unless ongoing vandalism is occurring. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oops, see #TemplateProtector bot updated; Should we use ECP on templates? below. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

FWIW coverage of this [48], [49]. --Masem (t) 04:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: I notice you've globally locked the vandal account, which seems reasonable. As a checkuser, do you think it's worth forwarding the IP and other checkuser information to WMF Legal / Trust and Safety, because I think they may want to consider legal action against the operator. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, reading the Gizmodo article, it seems they already know and are considering legal recourse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Spencer Grammer

The page for actress Spencer Grammar has been hacked. It now just shows a swastika.

See above discussion, template on that article was vandalised. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C@Joseph2302 A Wikipedia:Null edit may help, due to caching; which isn't guaranteed to invalidate at same time for everyone. "There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things" ~ Martin Fowler Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I hear that. Personally, I've never been a huge fan of https://counterstrike.fandom.com/wiki/Cache either, Shushugah. I just find some of the bottlenecks in that map to be a bit much. And don't get me started on that damn vent! El_C 22:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C What do you have against cash? It's not like it's ever been used for harm... Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I perform decently enough in it (like I do all maps — flex!), but I just find its flow to be a bit stunted. Almost feels like a suckier version of Nuke, if that makes sense. Anyway. El_C 22:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

"And no one's gettin' fat except Mama Cache" -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Stealth songspam, I respect that. El_C 16:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

TemplateProtector bot updated; Should we use ECP on templates?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Should we use ECP on templates?

 – — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed text for Civility restriction

Over the many years that Wikipedia has been around, one thing we seem to have difficulty with is how to address experienced editors with civility issues.

Battleground mentality, harrassment, insults, various aggression, etc.

I don't think I need to list explicit examples here.

So I've been mulling over arbcom cases, AN/I threads and the like.

And it seems to me that what we are really talking about is the classic "wearing out the community's patience".

So if that's the case, the question becomes then what specifically are we talking about, and how can it be addressed.

Here on Wikipedia, while we do have Civility policies and guidelines, we tend to give editors rather broad leeway, with the idea that open, collegiate discussion, and even debate, is better for the development of this volunteer-created encyclopedia project.

We also have many dispute resolution fora available for editors: both content-related and behaviour-related.

When trying civility restrictions in the past, they have had varying degrees of success. For one thing, even with the exception listed at WP:BAN, often the restricted editor feels as if the application of the restriction (whether they are going to get blocked) is very subjective. (I've seem it expressed as 'living in fear'.) And other editors may try to use the restriction as a weapon to use against the restricted editor, and depending on the wording of the restriction, the restricted editor may have little or no recourse.

Now any civility restriction is going to be subjective. ("We know it when we see it".) But there seems a general want from the community for "something" to be done besides outright banning of otherwise good editors.

So here's what I suggest: We tighten the rules - reducing that amount of "leeway" that we usually give. So the restricted editor in question needs to go seek dispute resolution.

Yes, this will seem like in school - going to the teacher everytime someone says or does something that the restricted editor thinks needs to be addressed.

That's by design. after all, the reason that they are restricted is the community feels that they are not addressing such things civilly, themselves.

And I want to reiterate that this should be reserved only for experienced editors. people who know their way around Wikipedia, and should easily be able to find the alternate venues in question.

And we should try to keep the duration as short as possible, to allow for a "mending of their ways". If they get used to posittively following dispute resolution, maybe it will help towards a shift in behaviour. And I think we would agree that the goal is to give people every opportunity.

So anyway, I've been trying to think of how to phrase this, and assistance on phrasing would be most welcome, but anyway, here goes - jc37 15:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Civility restriction for experienced editors

Per WP:CIVIL - "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."

"An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment."

An experienced editor with a civility restriction no longer may talk about any other editor's behaviour except when posting to a Wikipedia dispute resolution venue for third party assessment. ("Discuss the content, not the contributor".)

Also, during the restriction, conduct policies such as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:HARRASS will more strictly enforced for the civility restricted experienced editor. At an admin's discretion they may receive 1 warning or no warning before being sanctioned. ("Preventative, not punitive".) An editor under this restriction may be blocked for violating this restriction in excalating time frames, per the normal blocking policy.

This editing restriction is considered a type of WP:BAN, and falls under all the applicable rules and restrictions thereof.

This restriction may be applied in escalating durations of 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, or indefinite. A restricted editor may appeal this restriction just as they might any ban.

---

The above restriction may be placed by community consensus or by Arbcom, with the restriction logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

---

Thoughts welcome. - jc37 15:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Added the addendum above. - jc37 19:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (editing restriction)

I think something like this could be very useful. I completely support this. Paul August ☎ 16:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I like the spirit of this. We can play around with the wording over time, but in general I support a more explicit civility policy. --Jayron32 16:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

The idea and the text look good, but the elephant of the room is how this restriction is going to be applied. If any administrator can apply it, we have a huge difference in perception of incivility. If it should be applied by consensus similar to how community bans are issued on ANI - this could be even worse, typically the incivility champions have a huge support crowd, and the incivility can be provoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I didn't write it above (and maybe I should have), but I was thinking that this would be just like the way we trust admins to apply discretionary sanctions - it's an already applied restriction, that the admin is just enforcing, and all such enforcements should be logged, just like ban violations are. I think that that transparency should "help" against overly subjective sanction. What do you think? - jc37 16:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, with some help of ArbCom we could make it a discretionary sanction and then the AC/DS noticeboard would be the place to impose/remove the restriction. This does not removed the crowd problem - one of my favorite examples is when a statement (approximately) "I have never seen such an idiotic reasoning as yours" was tried at ANI and the conclusion was it is perfectly civil. However, it is better than nothing. Absent of the ArbCom decision, we can adopt community sanctions - then we do not have AC/DS, but we probably need this mechanism anyway, also for other sanctions.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Because of the restrictive-ness of this restriction, I'm not sure, but I don't think it should be something that a single editor can apply to another editor. Though I do understand your comments/concerns about an incivil editor's "supporters". But yes, I think this could be an option that the community or Arbcom could use. - jc37 16:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the community discussion is better than unilateral imposition of such restrictions.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, civility warriors. What would we do without them eh? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• It wasn't going to be my first note, but having read the above, this must not be something implacable by any individual admin, whether by default or part of a DS/GS equivalent (except, perhaps, as part of an unblock condition). It should be more like a TBAN. However, more generally, while I know this is trying to actually reduce the issue of unblockables, I would note it actually risks excabating it - in effect it will offer a mario-life for users who otherwise would receive indefs. In some cases that will be a positive and a feature, but in others it could be a negative. My third thought is that this is functionally specifically backing a different standard for experienced editors, which is a negative to me. Finally, given it's non-final form condition, this should be at WP:VPI, not AN. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  I chose to ask for thoughts and suggestion here because those who would be the most likely to enforce this are (in my estimation) more likely to watch and contribute here, than elsewhere. This is the admin noticeboard, after all. - jc37 19:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  Jc37, Nosebagbear, since you both brought this up: I don't think you need to worry overmuch about the relationship between this and GS/DS. Admins are already given wide latitude by DS: if I wanted to, I could certainly impose this as a sanction today, although it would presumably have to be limited to behavior in a given topic. Focusing on the formulation is useful, however, as it will likely be used in this way. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• If we had a rule that no one could accuse anyone else of intentional misconduct outside of a conduct report (ani, ae), and anyone doing so must retract (and go file a report if they want) or be indef blocked, that would probably end half of incivility episodes. And it'd be easy to enforce objectively. A "report it or keep quiet" rule for accusations of intentional misconduct. Levivich 20:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

  I can't imagine a faster way to never hear any reports about any wrong doing, ever. Punishing the victim for failure to follow some aggressive, zero-strikes procedure is a terrible plan and will solve exactly zero problems. Jorm (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

"An experienced editor with a civility restriction..." I know this is nit-picking, but is there a definition of an "experienced editor"? Is it time-based or edit based? Or indeed, both? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed in wiki research by me and others with our research hat on. There's no agreed upon definition, and we might as well chose something. How about an editor who can edit in the 30/500 areae? IIRC that's any account with 500+ edits and 30+ days. Synergy with 500/30 gives it bonus points for consistency. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support, badly needed and reasonably worded. On a semi-relavant note: WP:PAIN. I could never understand why it failed (old wiki history from 2005-2007). Could it be revived? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
• I appreciate the sentiment, and I encourage further thinking along this line, but I don't think I can get behind this as policy. Similar to what GeneralNotability in an earlier thread, what the community needs is to move away from treating experienced editors as a superior class: everyone has rights. This policy implies that our fourth pillar does not apply to power users. While that may functionally be the case due to our collective failure, enshrining that failure into policy is counter productive. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes But realistically, we have power users (heck, there is even academic research about this: [50]). In the ideal world, we wouldn't, but as we are human beings, there will be power differences between people, and even the most flat structure will develop a hierarchy and some people will be given more power and sometimes, abuse it or unduly benefit from it (see the iron law of oligarchy, for example). Everyone has rights, but some people's rights are more respected than others for various reasons, and we need to deal with this problem. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  I don't need a 12-year-old study to tell me that power users exist, and I'm not huge on early 1900s German political theory given how that played out for the world. How you can read my comment and think I don't believe we need to deal with this is beyond me, but to reiterate, obviously we need to do something. The solution is not to tell power users that they get to be assholes until we place this civility restriction on them. The solution is to consistently enforce the rules which already apply to everyone, not create a new rule that will be exploited by the same community dynamics that already make consistent and equitable enforcement of our policies impossible. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  To me this isn't "Yes, even experienced users need to be civil and we hereby confirm they should be subject to enforcement of policy." I'm interpreting it more as, "Experienced users, being expected to have had plenty of opportunity to learn what our civility policies are, should be given very little wiggle room. Once someone has X edits over a period of Y years, incivility is no longer excusable for reasons of ignorance, and those users who haven't internalized it will receive an editing restriction that forces them to adhere very, very closely to policy." That means you can't call someone a troll or a liar, period. It means the 'sometimes telling someone to fuck off is okay' decision no longer applies to you. It means provocation does not excuse incivility. It means "they started it" is no longer an excuse. It's not treating experienced users as a superior class. It's requiring higher standards of behavior from them than we might let slide when users are new. —valereee (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  It's actually simpler than that - I don't think this should be applied to newbies (trying to avoid biting them) because they might get lost trying to find Wikipedia's back-of-the-house processes. This has nothing to do with treating editors differently (We're all Wikipedians here), it's merely understanding that some editors have more experience with Wikipedia processes, and so that allows for a sanction option that might not be as possible to newbies. And this isn't about making a "policy", it's about adding a standardized tool to the toolbox - If you look at Editing restrictions, you may see all sorts of specialized "tools" created for various situations. - jc37 19:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Jc37, was that a reply to me? I think we're saying basically the same thing, aren't we? —valereee (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  Somewhat. I was more just further clarifying my intent after reading this thread of the discussion. - jc37 20:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that the upper class of editors getting a free pass to intimidate and bully newer users who may not know the system yet is a problem. However, Wugapodes has a point in that without dismantling the power structures that got us here, an extra rule will not be effective and simply be exploited in the same way existing rules are currently. I would instead support a system where the lower class of users is empowered to patrol, document, and report the conduct of power users in the same way that Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol has made Wikipedia robust against vandalism despite the common sense notion that it couldn't be done. MarshallKe (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Firstly, it is unclear what a Wikipedia dispute resolution venue for third party assessment is, and sounds more like WP:DR than WP:ANI. Secondly, it is similar to a restriction against Pasdecomplot (talk · contribs) imposed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Pasdecomplot that was ineffective, culminating in an indefinite block 3 months into the intended 6-month term. Finally, experienced editor is problematic in its own right due to its vague and privilege-imposing nature, and this rule does not resolve excessive lenience toward "experienced editors" as pointed out above. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

  Somehow, I don't think bringing up an example of an editor who started in 2020 is useful here. Besides I mentioned above that the past has had varying results. - jc37 21:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Enforce existing policy WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE There's already a policy on commenting on user conduct: If the issue is a conduct dispute (i.e., editor behavior) the first step is to talk with the other editor at their user talk page in a polite, simple, and direct way. Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article Talk pages ... In all cases, and even in the face of serious misconduct, please try to act in a professional and polite manner. Turn the other cheek. As as some have stated, it's just never been successfully enforced on veterans on a consistent basis, perhaps because of WP:UNBLOCKABLE backlash and inevitable unblocks claiming WP:NOTPUNITIVE.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Bagumba, yep. We just had an admin lift a block that, if it had been placed on anyone but a highly experienced editor with a ton of friends and enemies who all wanted to comment on the ANI, would have been considered a completely reasonable block of someone who had received multiple complaints of incivility.

  Most admins don't wait for a complaint at ANI to be "closed" before they decide a block is needed -- or at least, they don't for anyone with 2k edits instead of 200k. Do we really think any admin would have unilaterally unblocked in that case? —valereee (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - concerning the topic WP:CIVIL? I'm quite willing to allow an editor to be uncivil in discussions, as long as they aren't vandalising articles or edit-warring or creating sock puppets. I'd rather have an editor throwing F-bombs at me in a content dispute, then an editor politely telling me he/she will report me to ANI or Arbcom because I won't come to agreement with them in a content dispute. GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  I think the cases we are concerned with are personal attacks about a person's alleged bad faith or incompetence, not merely the use of profanity.—Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  In the past, I've been called a Fascist (on my own talkpage), a Unionist, psychologically unfit, etc etc. & other interesting names. Guess, I've grown a thick hide, these last 15+ years. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm doubtful as to how you will define "experienced". I'm also concerned about the impression it may give that it's acceptable for a newcomer to post abuse. Deb (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is merely a tool for possible sanction/usage. Not a licence. And "experienced" is left as undefined as "incivility" - "We know it when we see it." - jc37 21:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• As usual people are getting excited about civility without addressing the root causes of the problem. With very rare exceptions, no long-term experienced editor gets a kick out of being uncivil. What happens is that they face clueless opposition from an ice-cold and non-engaging brick wall (another long-term experienced editor who just happens to also be emotionless and who simply repeats their objection without engaging in a discussion). I don't know the solution but no one else here does either. The trick is to minimize the disruption without damaging the project. Frankly, some disputes need something like an editorial committee to make a ruling (tossing a coin would do), then very gently sanction people who push against the ruling. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  People have made rulings in the form of blocks, that get reverted. Perhaps WP:WHEEL needs tweaking, or do we need an Arbcom threat every time to come up with an edit restriction that says, "you cowboy admins reeeeeally shouldn't revert this one".—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  Is there an example? What I've seen is that an admin gets emotionally charged and issues a disproportionate block that is seen by uninvolved onlookers to be over-the-top because a 12-hour block would have been effective and less dictatorial. Then an admin unblocks because they can see that the block was inappropriate. The cure is to (a) work out how to also sanction the cause of the problem, and (b) issue a short block. Johnuniq (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

  This was probably the most recent.—Bagumba (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  You're kidding right? That is a textbook example of an over-the-top block that was quickly reversed for exactly the reasons I mentioned. For any third parties reading this quickly, I'm not saying the original behavior was good or that no block was warranted. I'm just that a proper cure is needed, as in my previous comment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  Why would I kid? Reversed without discussion with blocking admin (WP:RAAA) or many other admins that commented there. Advantage, reverting admin—always.—Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

WatanWatan2020

• WatanWatan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

A previous complaint was opened by Oshwah in January 2021.

The discussion was archived without being closed or resolved. Unfortunately, WatanWatan2020 continues to add unreferenced content (and to remove referenced content), for instance in Levantine Arabic.

As Oshwah wrote in January: "I feel like a discussion should be started regarding the issues relating to WatanWatan2020's edits to these articles, as well as this user's overall conduct. Are this user's edits to these articles substandard as pointed out many times on his/her user talk page? Is this user becoming disruptive to the point where actions or sanctions are necessary?" A455bcd9 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the matter here. Here, we will show exactly what I have inputted which is universally known information, whether sourced or unsourced. Along with this, it will also be shown per the recorded edits you made that show you intentionally have been putting false information in such as listing Israel as an Arab country and removing the fact that Levantine Arabic is the native language of the Arab people in the Levant. This sort of information is well known, although you have continued to make it otherwise. I am referring to A455bcd9.All records are available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatanWatan2020 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

WatanWatan2020 Please understand that universally known is not a valid criteria for adding material to Wikipedia. Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable from reliable spources. This is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. Please read the essay at Wikipedia:Common knowledge for a discussion why relying on "common knowledge", or in your words, what is "universally known", is a bad idea, and not compatible with editing Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 18:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Donald Albury, you exactly identified the problem. It seems that WatanWatan2020 does not understand the importance of reliable sources. I've already had this discussion with WatanWatan2020 on my talk page. But when I mentioned "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" and asked the user to "please provide reliable sources for every single sentence you want to add.", WatanWatan2020 answered:

• "This is common logic that does not require a source, as the information itself is a source."
• "everything that is added accurate and undeniable information, whether sourced or unsourced. this is because the information is universally known as well. For you to say "add a source for every sentence you want to add" that would mean Wikipedia articles would have a source listed at the end of each sentence throughout articles. this has never happened and frankly seems it will never happen. It is not viable."

This is the first time I file such a complaint, what are the next steps? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A455bcd9, I just looked at WatanWatan2020's contributions, and saw that the two of you engaged in a edit war yesterday in the article Levantine Arabic, in which the two of you reverted each other nine times in less than 24 hours. I almost decided to block both of you for edit warring, but decided instead, since neither of you had edited the article since yesterday, and neither had been recently warned about edit warring, to issue warnings to both of you. Note that if you revert one of WatanWatan2020's edits again, you may be blocked from editing without further warning.

As for your question, you need to separate any content dispute you have with WatanWatan2020 from any cases where you believe the user is systematically violating policies and quidelines. Be very careful about labeling edits as vandalism. Please read the policy at Wikipedia:Vandalism. You may open a complaint about another editor's conduct (but not about the content of their editing) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but be sure to include links to page differences that clearly show how their conduct violates policy and quidelines, or is otherwise detrimental to Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 15:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I answered your message here (mentioning this for other potential readers of this complaint).

Separating this content dispute from potential systematic violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines isn't obvious to me. Indeed, if Wikipedia:Vandalism is "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content [...] without any regard to our core content policies of [...] verifiability [...] is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." then a systematic additions of unreferenced content and removals of referenced content is vandalism (which is the reason why a previous complaint was opened in January, and why I opened this complaint), even though a single occurrence of such an edit may be done in good faith and therefore, not considered vandalism. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

This is fundamentally wrong. Removal of sourced content can occur for multiple reasons, and addition of unsourced content may be an error or just a misunderstanding of our rules. They are not automatically vandalism.

In this case, WatanWatan's behavior is disruptive and displays a lack of care for our rules, but that still does not make it vandalism under Wikipedia's rules. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi HandThatFeeds,

Thanks for your message. I'm sorry, I think my previous message wasn't clear. I didn't want to mean or imply that removal of sourced content and addition of unsourced content were automatically vandalism.

To provide more context: I reverted this edit from WatanWatan2020 where this user removed sourced content + added unsourced content + added a phone number link ("tel:") in a table. I asked WatanWatan2020 to discuss in the talk page. We discussed on my own talk page and I pointed WatanWatan2020 to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I asked them to provide reliable sources to back their claims. WatanWatan2020 instead reverted my revert and answered that "This is common logic that does not require a source, as the information itself is a source." and "everything that is added accurate and undeniable information, whether sourced or unsourced". I also noticed several warnings on their user page and a previous complaint related to similar disruptive behavior, without any regard to our rule of verifiability. That's why, given all the warnings they had previously received regarding the importance of providing sources and based on my own discussion with WatanWatan2020 and their answers (see also: "a source listed at the end of each sentence throughout articles. this has never happened and frankly seems it will never happen. It is not viable.") I then considered that their behavior was vandalism based on the definition given in Wikipedia:Vandalism ("The malicious removal of encyclopedic content [...] without any regard to our core content policies of [...] verifiability").

This situation is quite unpleasant to me and, if I made any mistake, I want to avoid repeating it in the future. So, was my reasoning was fundamentally wrong? If so, what should I have done instead? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Basically, WatanWatan's actions don't qualify as vandalism per our rules. They do qualify as disruptive editing, so just stick with that term. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification @HandThatFeeds.

@Donald Albury: I don't understand why this complaint has been archived because as HandThatFeeds said, WatanWatan2020's actions "do qualify as disruptive editing". And other contributors agreed in the previous complaint filed (and also archived without being closed or resolved). So, just to understand, how does this process work? A455bcd9 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, what A455bcd9 is doing is making himself to be the victim. I explained even above what he has been doing which is lying in articles and listing the most obviously wrong information that anyone can notice within seconds. For example again, he listed Israel as an Arab state and when i changed it, he took issue with it and reverted it back. He also removes that Levantine Arabic is spoken natively by the Arabs in the Levant. He claimed Modern Standard Arabic is the main language alongside Hebrew in Israel when only one official language is spoken there, Hebrew. I organized the the template under the “written script form” under Levantine Arabic without changing a single piece.. he took issue with it out of spite and undid my edit to it. If you look at the history, he has been undoing other peoples edits also. He has been controlling such a page for quite some time now.. and one wonders how many other pages he is controlling. He has filled up such article with thousands of letters of information, but the most important problem is he inputs the most false information. It damages the integrity of the truthfulness of these articles. This should dictate a huge penalty for doing such kinds of inputting. Also, check where he is pulling sources from. He is cherrypicking sources to fit a biased narrative. I asked him many times what is his intention for putting in this kind of mis information? What he is trying to achieve here? Why delete that Levantine Arabic is spoken natively by the Arab population within the Levant? Why try to make Israel out to be an Arab state? why claim MSA is the main language of Israel alongside Hebrew? And why delete the edits of other users? I only did edits that is the most obvious most accurate, and also to add cannot be refuted. While you publish misinformation continuously that could be challenged in seconds proven to be wrong. A455bcd9 is the one disruptive editing with continued false information and it is a matter of archived record within the edit history of such pages that he has been doing such. One can check easily what he has been publishing. Now he is attempting to circle back to such page and possibly again publish such wrong information or tilt it that way. Administrators should watch him closely to see things he publishes also. Thanks ~~ WatanWatan2020

Close review please

Hi, sysops. I need your help: please tell me whether I've got this wrong.

On 2nd August, I closed this rather technical discussion as "no consensus". It attracted more participation post-closure, and I asked the community for advice about how to deal with that here; when all was said and done, I still couldn't see a consensus. It's common ground between all the participants that there was no consensus in the discussion and the status quo ante should be restored.

However, a fresh dispute now exists about what the status quo ante actually is. My understanding is that we should read "no consensus" as meaning that no change should be made to the template; but other users feel that "no consensus" means that the template should be edited to bring it into compliance with a wider consensus (at WP:HIDDENCAT) which, they feel, applies. They're expressing some frustration and disappointment in me. There's extended discussion about this at Template talk:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler#How to interpret closure?

I'm very conscious that I'm not infallible, so I've opened this close review on my own motion. I would welcome your wisdom.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Gonnym has posted on my talk page objecting to my framing of the issue. He feels that it isn't a matter of consensus vs guideline, but of guideline vs guideline. His position is that WP:SUBTOPICCAT and WP:LISTRCAT support his view.—S Marshall T/C 15:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, you've done a great job with this. The initial closure looks to be correct, and while it's fine for discussion to continue after that closure, that doesn't mean the original RfC has to be formally reopened. Regarding which version of the template remains following a no-consensus closure - again my view is you're correct, that no change should be made to the template. No consensus means no change.

As others have pointed out, that doesn't mean that a consensus cannot be achieved in the continuing discussion - and if it is, and a change is subsequently agreed upon, then that's all good. But that is independent of the RfC and your closure, and I see no justification for criticising your judgement on that closure - it doesn't help to move the following discussion on. WaggersTALK 15:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I realise your queries keep being directed to sysops, but sysops do not have super authority on RfC closure reviews. Anyway, I largely agree with Waggers, but I would add two points for you to consider. Firstly, I think it it would have been better to specifically point out that discussion can continue in the closure statement. What is vexing about this is that the wider consensus cited by one on other templates is disputed by another in the case of this template. In other words, my second point is that your closure is missing is whether you found there is an applicable wider consensus (to hide redirect categories) or if you did not find such wider consensus applies as alleged. A wider consensus might be reflected in a policy, guideline or discussion. Presuming you cannot find a wider consensus, the last sentence of your closure remains correct. If you found there is a wider consensus for hiding redirect categories, then even so, your closure might stand because exceptions might exist for a wider consensus too, or it might not apply to this template for some other reason - though in the absence of a reason or exception, the 'no consensus' outcome might actually mean categories should be hidden. While a closure review does provide an opportunity for us to opine on whether we would find that a wider consensus exists or not, or if it is applicable or not, I personally haven't had a chance to look into that - and frankly, think that is something that would fall on you as a closer to reflect on first, unless for example you are unable to decide and can outline why you are torn as such. I hope this is helpful in any event. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. I do keep saying "sysops", but that's purely because I'm posting on the administrator's noticeboard -- which, per procedure, is the place where RfC closes are reviewed. I certainly welcome input from experienced non-sysops too.

When you say, whether you found there is an applicable wider consensus (to hide redirect categories) or if you did not find such wider consensus applies, I think discussion closers aren't allowed to make "findings" about that at all. WP:NHC says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy... 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. In other words, I think that our closing rules specifically say I can't do what you're suggesting. But I think that you, as a close reviewer, are allowed to do it, and that kind of decision is what's needed here.

If I take my closer hat off and give you my view as an editor, I'd say that it's established custom and practice that this kind of category is hidden by default. But that can't be my close. Wikipedians have a word for a close like that, and it's supervote.—S Marshall T/C 22:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The closer must make a finding, not as a supervote (which as you rightly point out would be entirely inappropriate), but as a matter of what the consensus is. Per NHC, The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy.... The key reason you find yourself asking for this review of your own closure is not because of the fact that there was no consensus at that discussion - rather, it is because (1) the last sentence on your close makes a finding on what the status quo is (not hiding categories); (2) one of the participants believes that a wider consensus exists for hiding categories and therefore the last sentence was incorrect. Does the status quo you have found flatly contradict an established wider consensus that is reflected in a policy, guideline or widely-participated discussion? A mere custom or practice will not cut it (and as you say, that would be a supervote). Conversely, does the alternative status quo queried by the editor flatly contradict a wider consensus? If the answer to both of these questions is consistent, or if the answer to the converse question is affirmative, the last sentence in your closure is correct. In any case, I endorse Hobit's suggestion below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see much of a consensus there either. Apart from Paine Ellsworth and Gonnym, who obviously care a lot about this, everybody else either didn't understand what was being discussed or didn't care. Perhaps the best way forward is to start a new RfC with a clear description of the question and limit Paine Ellsworth and Gonnym to one comment each. Hut 8.5 17:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• endorse and suggest a new RfC where examples are given. Let one write the "pro" side, the other the "con" side and limit them each to some reasonable number of words displayed. Maybe limit their contributions after that too, but not sure in exactly what way. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. Looks like a bit of non-stick-dropping on the part of Gonnym here, as there's clearly no way the discussion could have been closed with a consensus to allow the hidden category on the redirect - only Gonnym had expressed a firm preference for that, while Paine was against and Jc37 was leaning against too. SMcC was on the fence. Anecdotally I would probably lean towards having them as hidden myself, because it seems fairly clear this is a maintenance category. Certainly as a reader I would not be able to make sense of the category "Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler", and indeed several editors have also failed to grasp it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

User Cheezypeaz is vandalising the page; 'Welsh Not'

Cheezypeaz keeps removing large portions of the page Welsh Not, claiming that the contents are 'conspiracy theories', Iv'e asked the person to stop, but I hope someone may aid with the issue.

All the contents of the page is thoroughly researched, using credible sources, no part of the page has been manipulated nor distorted and there is no cause to mislead the readers.

The topic is a sore subject for Welsh culture so it may be targeted for multiple reasons, they may deny that such actions happened, they may have a political bias to hide that Westminster was involved, trolling or they have a personal vendetta.. either way, this needs to be looked at and addressed.

Preferably, it would be good if the page was given protection to curb future wrongful edits from occurring again..

Thank you for your time!. Hogyncymru (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I've re-added the above section because it was archived by the bot the instant it was added - seems there might be a bot bug that needs addressing? How does the bot handle edit conflicts? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems that Cheezypeaz has a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, thus a content dispute. There is discussion at the talk page, which Cheezypeaz has participated in. If the disruption continues then a PBLOCK may be in order, but hopefully it won't come to that. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted 2 entries one is clearly factually incorrect the other is original research and Hogyncymru has clearly admitted it to be. I documented my reasons for the deletion on the talk page. I haven’t participated in any discussion. I’m surprised at the reply by Mjroots Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz - you started talk:Welsh Not#Church of Wales conspiracy theory, that counts as participating. Suggest you see what WP:CONSENSUS develops there. I'm hopeful that no further action will need to be taken. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems that Mjroots is quick to disparage fellow editors without bothering to understand what the issues are. I too am hopeful no further action will be needed. Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to make comments like that, you'll very quickly find yourself blocked from editing. Consider this an only warning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps The Blade of the Northern Lights could review my edits and provide critical feedback? Or any other admin? Cheezypeaz (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is most assuredly not WP:VANDALISM: they removed dubious content, while leaving an explanatory note on the article's talk page. I think that Cheezypeaz could have taken a slightly different tone in their comments here, but their concerns over the content question appear to be well-founded. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Cheezypeaz was.. at first compliant in keeping his opinions in the talk page.. but he couldn't help himself, he just deleted large portions of the site once again... this user must be restricted from vandalising any more pages!Hogyncymru (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Hogyncymru Keeps complaining on this page and the result is that the admins instinctively assume that Hogyncymru is telling the truth and threaten me. Drmies this time. There is a consensus for the old changes I have re-made the new changes are backed up by actual historians rather than random edits (vandalism) made since 2018 with no sources. Look at the talk page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 18:35, August 16, 2021 (UTC)

Drmies please reverse your revertCheezypeaz (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I would like to request a block on Cymrogogoch & Hogyncymru for posting unsourced & very crude Welsh nationalist propaganda on the page Welsh Not (examine the edit history from the start of 2018). I thought you would recognise it! I have to say I'm disappointed at the threats from some of the admins.Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm rather enjoying the "fools rush in" aspect of this :)Cheezypeaz (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies Hows it going? :) You've reverted a number of lies back into the article against the consensus. What's that about? Perhaps you can tell me why I am wrong and Hogyncymruwith his fake sources is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies I've reverted you revert. Have to say that I'm surprised at the quality of admins on Wikipedia. You should investigate before reverting or threatening editors. Why revert my edits rather than Hogyncymru? The assumption here is that the original complainant is correct. Very little investigation done before threatening to block people who are trying to improve the encyclopaedia. I'm appalled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 22:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

• Cut it out, both of you. Hogyncymru, stop accusing Cheezypeaz of vandalism, that is a personal attack. Cheezypeaz, stop describing content added by another user as lies, that is also a personal attack. Discuss concerns on talk in a civil manner, and if you can't come to agreement then use WP:DR channels. Blocks will likely be forthcoming if the insults and edit warring don't stop now. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to stop, I don't want to be pulled into this issue over and over, I want talk to be the 1st option and removal of some parts later (after there has been a resolution), having someone come along and use pages as a playground is ridiculous, and the claims of conspiracies need to stop.. this'll be my last edition here, if there are any further issues, I hope they are addressed within the page's talk page, not here.. and I hope it remains civil. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Cheezypeaz: You have; claimed there's a 'conspiracy theory going on, deleted almost half of the page (repeatedly without the other editors agreeing to anything), you've alluded to the idea that other users are 'in on it' together, you've continuously gone against warnings (even though they have been lenient on you) and then you have the gall to request others to place a block on them from editing when they are following wiki rules and who are not going into edit wars (whereas you have), I'm glad you see the enjoyment in this charade with your I'm rather enjoying the "fools rush in" aspect of this comment.. but others try and run this site to help others by learning about facts rather than one person's vendetta against any criticism of the church and state, I'd be very careful how you proceed.. as others may not find your actions as helpful, but a hindrance. Hogyncymru (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

No he isn't. He's removing poorly sourced material that violates WP:V, WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE all at the same time. This is not vandalism. Even if the whole Church of Wales section is true, and verifiable, it has barely anything at all to do with the Welsh Not. @Cheezypeaz: described the content as 'Conspiracy Theory' he did not, as far as I can see, disparage other editors or call them conspiracy theorists, claiming he did is uncivil and should be retracted. JeffUK (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles that are in influx status

I believe administrative eyes are required on Afghanistan related articles, for the forth coming days, until the dust settles. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

More specifically, there is an absolute mess going on at Panjshir conflict and Panjshir resistance, where there have been some 8 or so moves in the past few hours, two move requests, one of which is actually an RfC, two separate deletion requests, two merge requests that cover the same topic, and a declined A10. Zoozaz1 talk 03:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe four of those 16 actions were taken by you. There does seem to be some indications of light WP:GAMING from you, such as WP:COPYWITHIN content from Panjshir conflict to Panjshir resistance [51] and then immediately slapping Panjshir conflict with an A10 nomination [52]. While it's no doubt a creative way to try to circumvent XfD, it is also a little disruptive. Chetsford (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Three of those actions were mine, a move, merge request and the A10 (you might be referring to me adding tags to some discussions that I didn't start). Note that A10 is "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic;" my copying of relevant information did not change the topic of the article, only the content (which, I would say, my copying improved). Zoozaz1 talk 18:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Correct, you copy/pasted 60% of the text from one article into a second article, and then - less than 60 seconds later - nominated the first article for speedy deletion on the grounds that it duplicated content from the second article. In other words, you made substantial, specific, and intentional edits to an article to ensure it would meet the A10 criteria and then nominated it for A10. By my reading that's gaming the system in spirit, if not in letter. Chetsford (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"In other words, you made substantial, specific, and intentional edits to an article to ensure it would meet the A10 criteria and then nominated it for A10"

Please don't ascribe motivations to other editors. I noticed the two articles had an extremely similar topic, and because of that both I nominated the article for A10 and added information (which remains on the article) that, because of the similar topics, would significantly improve the article. I assure you my motivation for adding the content (which, again, did not change the topic) was not to make it meet the A10 criteria. Zoozaz1 talk 18:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"Please don't ascribe motivations to other editors." I think, in this case, I'm describing motivations rather than ascribing them. There's a certain threshold of believability when it comes to protestations of naivete that the above edit sequence, taken in combination with other of your questionable edits, crosses. The corollary to AGF is WP:DGF. Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of gaming, it's inappropriate for revision-attribution reasons to request deletion of a page which has revision information copied within the wiki. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

The area is under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan Discretionary Sanctions. That said, I haven't seen any editor acting so badly that an AE filing is needed. There are certainly issues with unreliable sources (both Russian and Indian) but regular editing seems to be dealing with that. There is also the massive dispute regarding the title of the article(s) regarding organized military resistance to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan after August 15, 2021; I'm not sure there is consensus for any close on that matter yet. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

Earlier this year, the Arbitration Committee dismissed a case involving Flyer22 Frozen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) after receiving a credible report that that editor had passed away. Members of the community expressed condolences and Flyer22 was added to the "Deceased Wikipedians" page [53].

The Arbitration Committee subsequently received off-wiki correspondence alleging that Flyer22 had not actually died and explaining the senders' basis for reaching that conclusion. The Committee takes this issue seriously and looked into it as thoroughly as we could within the bounds of appropriateness.

We must ask editors to bear in mind that while the Arbitration Committee can be privy to some evidence that cannot be shared on-wiki, such as checkuser findings, the scope of our responsibilities and authority is still limited. We are a committee of volunteers who are elected to help solve disputes arising on a website. Our authority and responsibilities do not include conducting forensic investigations off of the site. For example, in connection with the current allegations, someone sent us documentation purporting to reveal the identity of Flyer22, and suggested that we investigate, perhaps even reaching out to that person and members of their family to determine whether and when the identified person had passed away. It would not be appropriate for the Arbitration Committee or anyone else to do these things, and we have not and will not do so.

It is, however, possible to take action with regard to the SPI relating to accounts that have edited in recent months. The following have been blocked following traditional SPI investigations:

• ApproximateLand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bio Flex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daner's Creek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Film Bio Legacy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gender Roamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kaseey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LearnerB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raining Parade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RandoBanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RazTazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ReaperRoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ren Ten10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editing by these accounts is improper independent of the circumstances concerning Flyer22. Accordingly, these accounts have been blocked. The person or persons behind these accounts is required to cease editing. Any concerns about further accounts may be posted to an as-yet-to-be created SPI page that the committee should have posted shortly, or e-mailed to the Arbitration Committee.

This is a difficult situation for many Wikipedians. Some key facts still are not known, and behind every username there is a real person. We ask that everyone please treat it with sensitivity, proportionality, and decorum.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Statement regarding Flyer22 Frozen

Movement Charter Drafting Committee

Looking over the current list of people applying to serve on the Movement Drafting Committee, I see that there isn't anyone yet whose home wiki is English Wikipedia applying. There's still plenty of time to apply - the deadline is September 1. In my opinion this work is one of the most important things that has ever happened in the Wikimedia movement. We don't just need good people, we need fantastic people serving on this committee because I think it's going to pretty substantially change how individual projects work and how projects interact with the Foundation. So this is my plea for the many fantastic people we have on this project to put their names forward. Wikipedia and Wikimedia needs you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly does this stuff mean? Maybe it's just me but a lot of the pages read really opaque. Is there a TLDR (Simple English-wiki style and no marketing speak) of the whole Movement Charter / Global Council / Drafting Groups / Interim Committees / Movement Strategy / etc stuff? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: this is an excellent point and one I have raised, several times, with the foundation. There is so much going on confusion is bound to happen. Let me try to do my simple explanation in the collapsed box below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Movement strategy 101

There was a multi-year process of strategic planning which lead to the creation of the Movement strategy (sometimes called the 2030 Movement Strategy which reflects the end of this strategic plan). In 10 general areas there were 45 recommendations made. Earlier this year there was a process which narrowed those 45 to 8 that were going to happen first. You can see those 8 on the strategy page. One of those 8 prioritized initiatives is to have a Movement Charter. I think of this as our constitution (or at minimum our Magna Carta). The group that is accepting applications now are the ones that will write that movement charter. So this is where we are in the process. In an earlier version this group had been called the Interim Global Council. That's because we know from Movement strategy that there will be a Global Council, which will be a global structure that responds to the needs of our Movement as a whole and represents communities in an equitable way. It is expected that the Movement Charter will describe that body, including how it is composed and what "powers" and responsibilities it will have. On a different track from this FRAM happened. Following that the Board mandated some changes one of which is the Universale Code of Conduct (UCoC). The text of the UCoC has been approved. Currently a committee, which I am a part of, is working on drafting language for how the UCoC will be enforced. I hope that helps explain the many different terms that you've mentioned. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Barkeep49, this is helpful. I know it's not written yet, but as an example what kinds of things will be in this Magna Carta (separate from the enforcement portion of the UCoC)? At least to the extent that it will affect English Wikipedia. The meta page makes gives me ideas on how it might affect affiliates etc, but not much about what it would mean for this project. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It is very open at this point. In any case, the charter must be drafted before the Global Council elections because it will specify what the authority of the Global Council is. It is difficult to predict how this is going to affect the individual project, UCoC may be or may not be part of it (my guess is that probably not), and I do not think it can specify anything which communities typically decide now on the global level (certainly not policies etc).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin touches on some of how this could impact English Wikipedia below but I suspect we'll be told that we need to go through the global council for things like editors using the apps being unable to get notifications. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. It sounds quite important then. Certainly I'd like to see the problems experienced by editors have more representation in technical decision-making and resource prioritisation beyond the current "make a phab request" and/or "use the annual community wishlist". Ditto for grant-making. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

One thing is that the requirements might be somewhat troublesome for some people who are thinking of applying. " Not be under active sanctions by any Wikimedia project or the Wikimedia Foundation, including events ban. "If that wording is taken literally, it would disqualify anyone under any sort of restriction, including interaction bans.( I have no clue what events ban means) Candidates also have to submit proof of real life identity. I hope that at least one non-admin community member and at least one well respected admin and/or functionary applies, so that ENWP gets representation on the committee. ( Note that if there are 20 or more applicants, there will be a popular election for 7 spots with no more than two members elected from each project.)Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Before the recent disaster, I considered applying (especially since I invested quite some time and effort to get this happened), but figured out that one of the requirements was being active in the governance of some sort of non-profit organization, and I decided not to bother.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter (and others) the only requirements are listed here. I think you're referencing the Candidate Profile which has a "no one can be all of these things" statement. I can say from my application to the UCoC enforcement committee there was a similar statement, I didn't meet all the profile statements and still got chosen. I would not let the non-profit governance statement deter you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I will not apply anyway, I have not yet fully recovered from the medical emergency. May be by the end of August I will be feeling better.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I want to +1 this – we absolutely need the best possible people we can find for this role. The Movement Charter probably has the most long-term importance out of all the strategy work that is happening now and is expected to do most or all of the following:

1. define community-WMF relations, and what the Wikimedia movement is (who it comprises)
2. decide how a Global Council should be composed and selected: e.g. election, appointment by WMF, affiliate selection, etc.
3. define the powers of the Global Council, which could likely include global policymaking authority, ability to represent the community to the WMF, some substantial budget (for staffing the Council and/or for grantmaking), appointment or advisory power over other committees or community bodies, and similar "community representative" functions.

Given that WMF is requiring the global community to adopt a Movement Charter, we really need to get it right. If you're reading this and thinking "ugh, I'd be good at that but I wish someone else does this instead", I hate to break it to you – you are exactly the kind of person we need on this committee. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If anyone believes that the WMF will really take into consideration whatever this committee decides that could be disagreeing with what the WMF actually wants, then by all means apply. Judging from recent events (from the branding fiasco, passing by what they did with the input about the UCOC, to the current situation with the utter disrespect given to the community questions at the elections (first the community input was completely disregarded, then after much protest the community questions were appended to the bottom of the documentation, far removed from the WMF-approved questions), not to mention things like the IP masking situation), the presence of community members will only be used to claim that whatever they decide is "community-proposed" or "community-supported" and that no further discussion will be possible. Fram (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it the election committee is responsible for that question debacle and that's a group of volunteers. And the UCoC text was written by a committee largely composed of volunteers. And I share your concern about how the global council could be used. Which is one reason I think it so important to get right. If the best people sit it out based on some sense of fatalism it definitely won't happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

At least the move to the bottom of documentation was done by a WMF staffer, not by a volunteer. To be precise, the "Movement Strategy & Governance Facilitator", who I guess will be involved with the Movement Charter draft. Fram (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Drafting is always done by the WMF staff, just because it can not be done by volunteers. (For example, it has to be approved by the legal). However, in the drafting I participated in we (volunteers) provided original ideas and then commented on the draft. The result was typically good. I guess Barkeep49 has more experience with the UCoC, but their experience are probably similar to mine. This is in a stark difference with the example the rebranding where volunteers were not asked to give input in any way (either as a selected organized team, or as a community), and this is why rebranding was such a disaster.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In some previous rounds of the Movement Strategy discussions the drafting genuinely was done by committee members. But otherwise I agree with Ymblanter, the situation with the strategy process (and I believe the UCoC, though I wasn't involved in that myself) is very different to that with e.g. the branding debacle. (Disclaimer: I am now a candidate for the charter drafting group). The Land (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's a full picture to say the Election Committee is a group of volunteers. I mean it's true, and they're likely excellent volunteers, but it's an appointed body. Apologies for the slightly disrespectful analogy, but it's a bit like a dictator inhabiting the White House claiming to represent the American people because he's also an American... If a person isn't selected by the community, then he doesn't represent the community and isn't accountable to it. Compare the WMF ElectCom fiasco with English Wikipedia's Election Committee who are elected - I'd be very surprised if any of them ignored a serious question for seven weeks (and it appears the WMF ElectCom do not intend to answer it at all). Indeed, I remember our ElectCom being highly responsive in 2020, eg with this mess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

This was a big deal of a discussion between many parties leading to this decision. I personally supported an concept of an appointed body, just because it will produce the charter faster, probably of the same quality, and the diversity can be adjusted. The only purpose of the body is to draft the chapter, not to make any decisions, and I do not think it has to be elected. There are different opinions of course, quite of few of us participated in the discussions.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

[Firstly, disclosure: I am a MCDC candidate] - As Ymblanter says, there was a significant disagreement on the makeup of the MCDC. Because framing is important, despite as aggressive a ratification method as I can get (whether in the MCDC or not), I was one of those on the opposite side of the "pure appointed" route - I wrote the most elected-heavy proposal for the drafting committee. Pharos wrote a more compromise one, and Quim (WMF) wrote the appointed one. He also wrote, the compromise solution that is very similar to the final form, and then a few tweaks were incorporated from feedback from others with an interest. I felt it was a good compromise - it was a huge shift from the WMF's original form, and so I backed it. I am also appalled with ElectCom's complete disregard to communicate - they need to be both elected, and there needs to be a community method to bring them to task for woeful and ongoing failures to communicate. As you say, en-wiki ARBCOM election commission is a less crucial, temporary, body, and is still more responsive. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Fram: Can you please elaborate on "passing by what they did with the input about the UCOC"? I'm having trouble parsing it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I mean "ignoring", "not even mentioning" what they did. Probably some idiom I translated into English but which doesn't work in that language :-) "Don't get me started on what they did with..." would have been better I suppose. Fram (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the problems with participating in drafting a Movement Charter is that one has to believe that there should be a Movement Charter and that this is a "movement." I'm one of those editors who is here to "build an encyclopedia," not to participate in a "free knowledge movement" or any other kind of "movement." Further, I think calling what we do a "movement," or calling any organized activity of people a "movement," equates it with real movements like the civil rights movement or women's rights movement, which is highly inappropriate (and frankly the kind of thing only a very white, very male group of people would do). So I hope anyone representing us on the Movement Charter Drafting Committee would raise the issue of "stop calling it a movement," but I think I'm in the minority when it comes to this viewpoint. Levivich 16:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Much as it may pain me to utter these words, I must say that I am in full agreement with Levivich here. This is an encyclopedia whose content is owned by its writers, not a "movement" owned by the WMF, which only exists to support the projects that have chosen to be hosted by it. This is just one more example of how Foundation employees seem to think that they own the encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure what the Charter is going to govern. Will it have an impact on editorial decisions? Sourcing guidelines? Will it govern the creation of new projects? Is it going to advise the WMF on how best to grow the project in regions and languages where the encyclopedia is lacking in content? We already have a separate new "code of conduct" group, so I assume it's not doing that. And it certainly is not going to be filled with lawyers who would be wanting to comment on WMF legal recommendations. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The charter is supposed to describe relations between different groups, such as the WMF, the affiliates, and the projects. It is not going to impact things like sourcing guidelines.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If this charter is a "who we are, why we are here and what we are doing" document, I wish I could be part of the discussion, but it sounds like this is for foundation people?

Also, does Global Council = over-arching arbcom for all of wikimedia? - jc37 18:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom is not a policy making body. The Global Council will (almost certainly) be a policy making body, though more at the level Ymblanter describes above in response to power. A global ArbCom is a possible outcome of the UCoC enforcement work. There will soon be a chance to give feedback on that very idea and if you have thoughts on whether there should or shouldn't be a global ArbCom I hope you participate in that process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I know I'm one of those darned meta people, but to me this legitimately looks like an attempt by the WMF to involve the community more in issues of global governance. They could full well just continue to handle movement-wide issues on their end or with affiliates, but instead they're taking a committee of (elected) volunteer community members to write up a charter to handle global community issues. And, at the very least, the WMF has lately given a significant degree of freedom to the volunteers involved in these sort of committees. I don't really see sufficient reason for the end-of-the-world type ideas expressed in this section, and though the worst case scenario can definitely be quite bad for community independence, that seems quite unlikely considering the current documentation available on Meta-Wiki. Though perhaps I am too quick to assume good faith with the WMF. Best, Vermont (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Contingency plans

• I've been thinking this for a while, and maybe it's time to stick my head over the parapet and say it: We need an exit strategy. I mean, of course we all hope that the WMF's (many) new directions and initiatives are going to be inspiring and brilliant, but historically they haven't always been, and some of the more controlling aspects of their behaviour are starting to worry me (and others). I think it's only prudent for our community to have a backup plan. Which, to my poorly-IT-literate brain, probably means a fork?—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  For reasons I discuss at my essay, Death of Wikipedia, I think a fork, even a really organized one that gets a lot of us that are most active, is doomed to fail. This new fork would have to operate for quite some time before it might start regularly appearing above Wikipedia in Google results or AI assisted searches. It would take a while for our readers to figure out that Wikipedia's quality has diminished. And, if I'm being particularly cynical or maybe just realistic, it's possible some of the readers would never figure out that the information they're getting isn't what it once was. I suspect that if there was a foundation based schism some people would just stop volunteering their time for encyclopedic work, while most of the people who kept volunteering their time would end up returning to Wikipedia. We need Wikipedia more than Wikipedia needs us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Even from the early aughts, WikiTheorists recognized that forking Wikipedia would be a non-trivial and likely futile task compared to other wikis and FOSS projects. See the discussion at meatball:WikiPediaIsNotTypical from around 2003 (dated by references to the rename of Phase III to MediaWiki which occurred in 2003) — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

• The exit strategy isn't "fork," it's "revolution." Vote in the trustee elections for trustees who share your views. The community needs to maintain control over whomever owns the servers. If we find new server-operators to replace the WMF, we'll still need to control them, so there's not much point in doing it. Just exercise the control we already have (by voting for trustees who share our views). Levivich 17:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  We don't have that control over the WMF and never will. If the WMF serves us up a shit sandwich, our choices are to eat it and smile, to abandon encyclopaedia writing, or to fork.—S Marshall T/C 17:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  How do you reconcile that conclusion with the fact that we elect a majority of trustees? If the WMF serves up a shit sandwich, one choice we have is to put in different trustees who will serve us a better tasting sandwich. Levivich 17:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  The rebranding was an example of a shit sandwich, and I do not think we have eaten it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  If they served up a particularly bad sandwich, we could just choose not to eat it and play chicken (game) with the WMF. Yes, they have the servers, but I image we've got the technical ability in the community to attempt some work-arounds with the software. Will WMF sink their flagship? I'm not so sure ... Hog Farm _Talk 18:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  North8000 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC) That's putting it mildly. Wikipedia is more than WMF's flagship, it's the sole ship which supports them, their ivory tower, and all of their other hobbies.North8000 (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with this in theory. In reality the recent questions debacle shows the difficulties of even being able to figure out which trustees share views on issues we consider dealbreakers when it comes to voting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  ...which, I say, is our fault and not the WMF's. It's a bit of an indictment of the health of community governance that the candidates themselves can't communicate their own positions to us effectively. Or that we don't have enough candidates who can. Fundamentally, we're not communicating well with our own representatives. There's very little participation in the process. But we have a deep well of potential trustee candidates, in my opinion. I would vote for literally every single editor in this thread to be trustee if they ran. But almost no one wants to run (including me). That's the fundamental problem. More heresy from Levivich: We should pay trustees; that will increase the candidate pool. Levivich 18:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm concerned that only 5 (out of a total of 20) candidates decided to answer at least one community question. I have two possible explanations: 1) they either didn't know about them; or 2) they decided it wasn't important. Both, to me as a voter, indicate a serious communication concern incompatible with the position of community-elected trustee. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  I noticed some of the candidates addressed concerns raised in the community questions in their answers to the WMF-selected questions. Levivich 19:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich isn't wrong about this. There is a figure for which I'd do that job, but it is not zero.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A strategy for Wikipedia to fire WMF might make WMF improve. Including changing the ridiculous by-laws which make the elections a "talk to the hand" situation. Imagine if the US Senate had supreme power over the US. And with a 51% vote they could rewrite the US constitution any way that they wanted. And they already decided that a big portion of the Senate is self-appointed by them, and they decide the election rules for joining their club. And with a 51% vote that coudl expell any Senator that they didn't like. Believe it or not, that is the fundamentally flawed structure of the WMF bylaws.North8000 (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

A thought

I look at this bureaucracy-building at the WMF level, and I'm trying to step back and see "why".

I could presume all sorts of wheel spinning, wool gathering, and people just doing "something" for "feel-good" reasons, or even just to say that they did "something".

But I think that this could possible be more than that. I think the universal CoC is the key to figuring this out.

I am not a lawyer, but I think, if we look undermeath, this may well be about fear of types of liability, legal or even really merely just perceived.

Things like the 230 debates, or that certain social media companies are adding commitees to review content and/or user interaction, in order to buffer against corporate liability, and so on.

But if so, in my opinion we already have oversighters and ombudsmen. Do we really need all this?

We are an encyclopedia project. It's starting to feel like someone out there thinks that we need to become the Federation of Planets. Jimbo Wales is not Hari Seldon, and we are not Terminus, starting the next Galactic Empire.

So what's going on? And is this what we want, much less need? I know I am just one small voice out in the wilderness, but where are we really going from here? - jc37 19:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that what is going on is that many people employed by the WMF think that they own a social media site, and are acting accordingly, rather than realise the reality that their job is to provide support to an encyclopedia that is owned by its writers. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

They do own a social media site. They're hosts for user-submitted content so they're subject to the same legal pressures as facebook et al.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

They are employees, not owners. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Who owns what is a really key point in all this. I will probably expand on this later but we lose sight of who owns the platform (the WMF), who owns the content (everyone), and who owns the distribution system that delivers the content from the platform to the readers (Google, Apple, Amazon, etc.). Each is a separate and distinct role in the knowledge ecosystem (now I sound like I work for the WMF). Levivich 20:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Somehow I distrust any organization that raises the banner: a global structure that responds to the needs of our Movement rather than, say, the users or the needers—or peoples. – Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 15:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

At least in terms of the UCOC, the staffers involved are very much well aware of their role, especially given that many were volunteers prior to becoming employees. Vermont (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're looking at the Movement Charter and Global Council and wondering 'what is the point of these', allow me to summarise - as one of the people who wrote the recommendations that led to these.

Basically, the relationships between all different parts of Wikimedia are something of a mess. The WMF and project communities, including ours, have very different expectations about who is supposed to do what. Even where there is a shared understanding, it's rarely written down anywhere and is easily forgotten on one side or another. These conflicting expectations cause friction, arguments, and lack of trust. There are also not that many channels of communication between different parts of the movement. If the English Wikipedia and the WMF need to have a conversation, how does that conversation happen? Not very effectively at the moment. And this is just the English Wikipedia and the WMF! When you add the hundreds of other projects and dozens of other Wikimedia organisations, the levels of confusion, unclarity and mistrust grow even higher.

Hence the idea of a Movement Charter to document the constitution of the Wikimedia movement (so to speak), and a Global Council to provide a forum for structured discussions and accountability all round. I hope that helps... The Land (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia heirarchy differentiation

I believe Wikipedia will eventually surpass The Bible as the most-copied English-language text, both in frequency and duration. (4021 CE: Scholars confirm Levivich was right.) In thinking about how to preserve and sustain Wikipedia in the long term, it's important to understand the difference between the content, the platform, and the distribution. Like Wikipedia, the content of the Bible was written by many different people, copied onto many different platforms (papyrus, parchment, paper, hard drives), and distributed by different organizations and people (book stores, churches). With Wikipedia:

• The content of Wikipedia is the text that the reader reads, and it is what is copied by Wikipedia mirrors.
• The platform is MediaWiki, hosted on web servers controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation. In our case, MediaWiki is essentially the same platform that stores the "official copy" (the Wikipedia database), that we use to edit that official copy (editing user interfaces like Visual Editor), that we use to communicate with each other about changes to the official copy (talk pages), and that readers use to read the content (the website user interfaces). All of our wikitext, templates, modules, scripts, style sheets, etc., are part of the platform, not the content.
• The distribution – how readers access the content – is mostly via other entities such as Google, Apple (Siri), Amazon (Amazon Alexa), and other tech companies. (A minority of readers access the content via the platform directly, e.g. by visiting the main page at en.wikipedia.org and searching from there.)
• The content community of people who write the content is a self-governing, leaderless, autonomous collective that operates by consensus. This is the part that no one thought would actually work, but somehow it does.
• The content community puts the development, operation, and maintenance of the platform into the hands to the WMF, with results that many (most?) in the community are not satisfied with. The WMF also regulates how the content can be distributed from the platform by distributors like tech companies (e.g., m:Wikimedia Enterprise).
• When the WMF tries to govern the community, the community objects, because the community believes the WMF should serve the community, and that the community governs itself.

"Forking" means finding a new platform for the official copy of the content. And the key to that isn't the WMF or the trademark Wikipedia or the domain wikipedia.org or the servers or MediaWiki software, it's the distribution. The fork needs to work with Google, etc., in order for readers to be able to access the fork content. That is, the distributors need to know that the fork is the "official" copy. If Google switches from using wikipedia.org to using wikipedia-fork.org, then the fork will succeed. If not, then a fork will fail. One thing I think we should do for our long-term success is to split up the following, so it's not all under one organization's (the WMF) control: (1) control of donations, (2) control of the database that holds the official copy and regulates access to that official copy (e.g., dealing with distributors), (3) development and maintenance of user interfaces for reading/editing/communication, and (4) representing/supporting/growing the content community. Levivich 21:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're largely right. But I also see no big incentive for Google to swap. I suppose Google would swap over to a fork if it turned out en.wikipedia.org had reliability issues to the point of making all those "This information is fetched from Wikipedia" boxes filled with inaccuracies, and if the vandal/legitimate edits ratio became > 1. There's also the widespread branding of the "Wikipedia" trademark, which itself draws contributions, and that would be hard to replace.

It's not exactly the same thing but see Wikitravel vis-a-vis Wikivoyage. It seems it takes a lot of time and energy to sink a ship even when the operator decides to run it into a rock. (that is, dissatisfaction related to long-standing discontent at poor hosting, poor site updates, and excessive monetization and advertising, and eventually, interference by Internet Brands in the community's activities in breach of prior agreements and understandings.) With Wikitravel, I believe the community migrated to Wikivoyage 9 years ago (not before some contributors were sued for "civil conspiracy") and now it's about even in Alexa pagerank. Wikitravel still has better ranking for keywords, especially for the more competitive ones.

Realistically, for a sustainable community-based fork to appear, the WMF would need to do a series of catastrophic failures in every department that led to a situation so awful that the silent majority of the community had no choice but to migrate. And then there would be a test of how long that energy (on a fork) can be retained. At any point a minor concession by the WMF would be likely to draw editors back. Still, the most realistic idea for a fork I saw was at User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_43#How_to_kill_a_wiki. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

LibreOffice managed this transition successfully when it forked off OpenOffice. The tech journalists reported the fork, because it was a big deal and it mattered, and the users soon cottoned on and adapted to the new name. And we have the tools to inform our readers of the switch.—S Marshall T/C 22:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I still know it as OpenOffice, I'd search for OpenOffice and I'd head to https://www.openoffice.org and use OpenOffice. The Audacity fork on the other hand.. ~TNT (she/her • talk) 22:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

An alternative arrangement might be to have a "Wikipedia Trust" that receives, maintains (invests), and spends donations, under legally-enforceable restrictions spelled out in its trust instrument. For example, the first XXX dollars might be earmarked for web hosting (cf. m:Wikimedia Endowment), and any surplus funds spent only by direction of a separate Editors Union that represents the interests of the content-creating community. The Union can have Working Groups that prepare Resolutions and present them for a vote of the Union membership. For example, Resolutions might authorize the Trust to spend money on short-term projects (like hosting a Wikimania) or long-term projects (establishment of a "Wikipedia Labs" that develops software). Under this structure, money would be spent on discrete projects with clear and finite budgets, and only after the community (via the Editors Union) approves it. Levivich 02:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, Levivich, how does your suggested "Editors Union" differ from the proposed Global Council? And do you really think that there's any real chance that a union membership of somewhere around 100,000 people is really an efficient or effective way of distributing funds? Will not the largest blocs of editors (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian projects) not wind up showing a degree of self-interest that pretty much replicates the inequities of the current process? Do you think that the vast majority of editors cares about most of this stuff? I mean...we have a hard enough time finding sufficient good candidates for Arbcom amongst 30,000 regular editors on this project, do you think we're going to be getting a lot of people "voting" on whether or not to invest in (for example) editor development in Kenya, or purchasing licenses to upgrade the Mailman system, or outreach to GLAM institutions in Southern India? Risker (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why it matters if the Union is exactly like the Council or not at all similar or something in between. I doubt the Union would reach 100k voting members (we've never had that many people vote on anything), but there are international unions with 100 million members and they still function so I think we'll be able to manage enrollment. I don't think the vast majority of editors care to get involved in the details of this stuff, and I don't see the majority doing any of the specific things you list, but I do see ~10 editors who would want to join Working Groups that draft Resolutions to have the Trust fund a Kenya Project, a Mailman Project, and a GLAM Project, and I see ~1,000 editors who would want to vote on whether to ratify those Resolutions. Levivich 06:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  So a bit like a Cooperative? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• Another aspect of forking is of course that there is a good reason why WMF exist. Even if the project gets forked, none of the users want to go to jail or be exposed to huge legal expenses, and this is why one needs legal. And then one figures out that legal costs money, and one suddenly needs a financial department and a funding department, and then soon we have the WMF 2.0. Even assuming most people who want to fork only want to fork the English Wikipedia, if we can not really built reasonable relations with the WMF 1.0 at the times which were favorable for creation of non-profits, why does anybody think the forked project will build thye WMF 2.0 more successfully? I have seen indeed some ideas how it could be done, but I do not think any of those I have seen was in any way realistic.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

• My two cents:

1. It's natural for organizations to want to grow and expand based on whatever platforms they have, and that often leads them in unexpected directions. There are well known examples in both the OSS and the commercial worlds (Eclipse, Apache, Mozilla; and Nokia, AT&T and Samsung, respectively). Whether they turn into a bureaucracy or not depends mostly on how lean they keep their administration; indeed, a common metric for the efficiency of NGOs is how much they spend on administration and fundraising vs. on services and donations.
2. I may not relate to this expansion myself - I'd rather the WMF spent some time modernizing MW instead - but I do think it needs its mandate a redefined, given how "spread out" it has become and the potential conflicts it might have because of it.
3. Forking is not a viable option at the foreseeable future. Several initiatives have gone this route, and none is even close to replacing Wikipedia. The main hurdles are upkeep and traffic, and both translate to a huge initial investment (probably in the tens of millions of USD, but I'm no expert). Perhaps it would be a viable option in the future, but at the moment it isn't.
4. If you want to affect change in the WMF you indeed need to organized: contact the leadership of other wikipedias, define a common set of values and goals, then put people on the board (or committee, or whatever) that can affect it. You want those people to have managerial experience; being accomplished wikipedians is all swell, but lawyers, accountants, and experts in public administration are the ones who'll know how to turn your ideas into something actionable.

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Questions About Movement Charter Drafting Committee

I came in a few days late because I am not always following this noticeboard, and am more interested in keeping the maintenance of the encyclopedia orderly than in something that calls itself a movement. (The International Olympic Committee is the organization that coordinates the Olympic Movement. We have varying opinions about the IOC and the games that are designated by the year when they were not played.) I have a few comments and questions that I hope are not considered stupid questions. They may have already been answered, but I have been trying to review drafts and mediate content disputes. I see that User:ProcrastinatingReader has also asked for a plain-language overview, so I am not alone.

First, User:Barkeep49 says that: "We don't just need good people; we need fantastic people serving on this committee". I hope that Barkeep49 can explain what they want in a realistic way, because one definition of fantastic people is people in fantasy literature, such as superheroes, and we won't get the people. So what will this committee do in the real world that does not require superpowers or the pretense of superpowers? Will the committee actually change the business processes of building the encyclopedias (in multiple languages) including the English encyclopedia, as opposed to rubber-stamping the grandiose plans of the WMF, or giving wise advice to the WMF that is ignored? (The latter would be better than nothing, but hardly seems to call for superheroes.)

Second, perhaps this question is a distraction, but there is mention of a rebranding debacle or rebranding scandal. I may have been too busy trying to mediate a content dispute or reviewing drafts, so I wasn't reading the newspaper, and don't know what this failure was. Who tried to rebrand what? Is this documented somewhere that I can read?

Third, the committee will only affect the English Wikipedia to the extent that it will change the relationship between the WMF and the encyclopedia. That relationship has mostly been one of providing and administering an infrastructure of servers and software, watching and sharing in credit, with behind-the-scenes almost-invisible dirty work of banning rogues, and occasional stupid forays into the arbitrary exercise of power such as the User:Fram episode. The underlying legal basis is that the WMF owns the servers, and the encyclopedia has a copyleft, and any community that has access to servers is able to host the encyclopedia. What evidence is there that the WMF actually wants to evolve?

Fourth, what is or will be the purpose of this movement?

I think those are my late questions for now. Why do we think that an advisory committee may have or use superpowers? What exactly will the advisory committee do that doesn't involve superpowers? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Robert, I was using the "excellent, superlative" definition of the word fantastic. In terms of your other questions, a lot of of it has been covered above but will highlight Kevin's reply from 23:20, 5 August 2021 and my reply from 13:43, 6 August 2021 as possible starting points. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Still Confused

Well, I knew what User:Barkeep49 meant, but I still am not sure what the function of the committee is, because I am still not sure what the movement is for which a charter is being drafted. Therefore I can't be sure whether the advisory committee really will have any role other than to rubber-stamp the grandiose plans of the WMF, or to give wise advice to the WMF that will be ignored. The advice to look at an exchange between you and User:L235 did not help.

I still don't know why we need a Movement Charter. I also still don't know whether the Movement Charter Drafting Committee will have any real role beyond giving wise advice to the WMF that will be ignored. If there is a Meta page that explains what this is, maybe that would help.

There was a reference to a rebranding debacle. I am not sure what that was.

My reference to the need for superpowers by the committee members was partly one of frustration at what really looks like a lot of marketing buzzspeak. When I read something in article space or draft space that consists of marketing buzzspeak, I can tag it for G11. So I really wonder if the applicants for the committee need to have the superpower of telepathy to understand what the WMF wants.

I'm sorry, but I really don't have a clue as to what this charter is supposed to be. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced that a 'movement' in any real sense actually exists, except as a vague buzzword thrown around by people trying to make themselves seem important. The many projects on WMF servers have all sorts of people involved, for all sorts of reasons. Claiming they all constitute a 'movement', and thereby suggesting they all have a common objective, is stretching the word way too far in my opinion. People who use Twitter aren't a 'movement', so why should people on the many WMF projects be? Or even on a single project for that matter? And much the same applies to the word 'community', as used on this project. It really doesn't accord with what actually goes on here. A little less doublespeak and a little more honesty might make communication with the WMF (and each other) easier. Even if the WMF apparently wants to pretend that they are running some sort of world-wide organisation for all-thinking-the-same-nice-thoughts, we don't have to play along... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

CfD backlog

There are currently 150 old CfD discussions awaiting closure or relisting. The oldest 10 are as follows:

1. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists
2. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_6#Category:Flemish_geographers
3. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_10#Category:Political_party_colour_templates (this one is double-counted in {{XFD backlog}})
4. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_10#Category:German_former_Hindus
5. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:Victims_of_the_2012_Aurora_shooting
6. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:NaCl_structure
7. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:Zincblende_crystal_structure
8. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:DYK/Pages/Soft_redirects
9. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_12#Category:Islamic_studies_scholars_by_nationality
10. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_13#Category:LGBT_Roman_Catholic_bishops

Some of these have already been relisted at least once before. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This is urgent now: The CfD backlog has increased to 165. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement draft available for comment

As you might know I have been serving on a committee that has been writing how the Universal Code will be enforced There is now a draft of the enforcement guidelines. While a lot of work has been done, there is a lot of work to be done, and crucial questions remain open. I am hoping that we can get a wide range of English Wikipedians contributing feedback and offering answers to the open questions from the committee. Notably many of the details around what can/will be enforced on a local basis and what can/will be enforced by a global body remain undecided. This has historically been something many on English Wikipedia have strong opinions about, from many perspectives, and I hope that those many perspectives are represented in the feedback process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I haven't followed this in any detail, but I've spent a couple of hours this morning reading it and trying to catch up. To me, this all looks very worthy and well intentioned, and also hard to do in practice (possibly to the point of unworkability). I also think it means fundamental changes to the character of our community which I personally would not welcome. I see difficulties both with the text of the UCOC and with the practicalities of enforcing it.
  On the text of the UCOC, I understand the pressures that require us to adopt a Universal Code of Conduct, and agree that we need one. But to my eye, the text of this UCOC is a gift to griefers. I have absolutely no idea why we as a community have ratified it, what the holy heck were we thinking? Please could someone link to the discussion where we did?
  On the practicalities of enforcing it, I note with no small amount of horror the imposition of a new class of duly trained Code Enforcement Officers with their own set of elevated permissions and their own governance body. I'm afraid that on first reading, I immediately suspected that the reason why we can't use our elected sysops to enforce the code is because the WMF can't force those sysops to sign up to the UCOC retrospectively.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I've responded to the request for feedback, and suggest you do too, I think I get to the same conclusion as you from the exact opposite direction. The spirit of the 'UCOC' seems to be covered in it's entirety by WP:Civility , which is already enforced on Wikipedia pretty well in my opinion, so whilst codifying the UCOC may have some merits, I don't think we have a problem that some new enforcement process would solve. JeffUK (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@S Marshall the community did not ratify the UCoC. The Board of Trustees did. There is an argument to be made that this was voted on by community representatives, because a majority of the board are chosen by the community or affiliates, but that seems less than sufficient for something like the UCoC. I want there to be an actual ratification process for the enforcement of the UCoC and I want the community to be able to give feedback on that process before it's put into motion. We'll see.

As for the comments about the training and the like I hope you make those on the draft page (if you haven't already). I am short on time at the moment owing to off-wiki and on-wiki responsibilities but if you do I can promise to continue the conversation there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer not to give feedback on meta at this stage. I think would prefer for us as an en.wiki community to have a discussion, here, reason it through, and then give feedback after we've collectively refined our views through discussion. I'm appalled to learn that community ratification has been overlooked. I feel that's atrocious.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Serious? A Wikimedia project laying down a Universal Code of Conduct on Wikipedians? Of course anything like this should be discussed on Wikipedia itself, not off-site. I haven't read it, would distrust anything at this point in human history labeled "Universal Code of Conduct", and from the early comments here something seems off. But off site comments? I don't work on Wikimedia, and only comment off site when someone at Commons tries to pull a quality image. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Need help with a really bad case of copy-paste.

Could somebody take a look at WP:VPT#How do I free up my sandbox?. The gist is that Anaplastic large-cell lymphoma and especially Eosinophilic myocarditis now have bizarre histories, weaving together the histories of several different pages which passed through User:Joflaher/sandbox. At this point, I'm not sure what's the best thing to do. I suspect just leave the histories as is and leave a note on the respective talk pages pointing to the VPT thread by way of explanation is the best way forward. I'm a little out of my depth on this, so seeking backup from somebody who's a real wizard at histmerges and the like. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've replied there with my thoughts. Graham87 07:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Holocaust conspiracies on your website

Attention Wikipedia administration,

I am writing this after receiving a complaint this morning. When processing complaints on defamatory content, we first contact the administration of the website in question.

A user named Nihil novi, named after a nationalist document revered by Polish nobility, uploaded defamatory content to your website: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jedwabne_pogrom&diff=1039308902&oldid=1039278482

This upload places a screed by Ewa Kurek in a famous Polish massacre of Jews. Ewa Kurek is a well known Holocaust denier who has recently advanced antisemitic conspiracy theories about COVID: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/polish-historian-ewa-kurek-coronavirus-is-jewfication-of-europe-629877

We are requesting that you remove this upload at once, and that you take action to prevent future uploads of antisemitic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALevy at MOTJ (talk • contribs) 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

While it's nice that someone from the Ministry of Textiles and Jute is taking at interest in Wikipedia, please first familiarize yourself with WP:BLP and WP:AGF (before making claims about our volunteers or biographical subjects). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see - [54] -GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

For reference (and to ping the editors involved) User:Volunteer Marek has reverted the edits by User:Nihil novi entirely, but this should be discussed on the article talk page. Volunteer Marek has create a section to do so. JeffUK (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Legal requests go to legal@wikimedia.org. Attempts to build consensus to change content start at the talk page, which would be Talk:Jedwabne pogrom. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other options, if that doesn't work out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• OP indeffed. Icewhiz, if it's you, as I've said before, the damage you've done to your own camp cannot be understated. So, if this is you, this is kind of a dumb volley (form -wise, at least). OP, if somehow you're not Icewhiz (which, who can tell?), you've gone about this the wrong way. Legal remedies are pursued at the Foundation level, not by volunteers at the project itself. Thanks, VM, for reverting that "Historian Ewa Kurek" nonsense. Something of that nature makes me question Nihil novi's fitness to edit WP:ARBEE/WP:APL. I'll give them a refresher DS alert and feel free to report any further issues about them concerning this topic area (broadly construed) to me, personally. El_C 20:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

No kidding, eh? They should get an Order of the White Eagle and a lifetime pension. But to be honest El_C, I believe there is more than one player involved. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, more than half of these throwaway sockpuppet accounts have been run by team Poland in order build up sympathy, get pages protected, and drive away uninvolved editors. Couldn't be more transparent. 118.43.239.183 (talk) 13:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Waaaaaiiiitttttaaaaminute! How do we know YOU, 118.43.blah.blah.blah, aren’t “Team Poland”, trying to triple cross everyone here? Hmmmmmmmm?????? Volunteer Marek 13:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

.. you just can’t stop, eh? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Tyler Breezy's contributions to Wikipedia

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

---

User Tyler Breezy has created several short, promotional articles which all have been marked for speedy deletion. The user has also recreated their promotional userpage after it was deleted. The user is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, and I think admins should take a look at this user. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It would seem that normal processes of the community can manage this, or at least attempted for a few days. Blocking at this stage seems like too much stick. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a combination of blatant self-promotion exacerbated by incompetence. He has 2 live edits, and 20 deleted edits, and he has been promoting himself since 2020 (his userpage having been twice speedy deleted). His only attempt at communication was to attempt to save his userpage from being deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, this should have been posted at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

User's indeffed for promotion. Hopefully this will not last long and this is a wake up call to them to understand Wikipedia's not to be used to promote their music. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: Maybe you slept even less than I did last night. :-) You deleted the user's Talk page per G11, which I don't think you intended to do, and failed to block the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Secretlondon (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Secretlondon: As long as you're fixing things (thanks), how about adding a block notice to the user's Talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm rusty. Fixed that bit too. Secretlondon (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Coffee, THEN Wikipedia. Thanks all. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:32, 15 August 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.

Behavior of Adamdaniel864 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.

---

There was an earlier ANI, now in Incidents archive #1074. The persistent issue is competence is required. Adamdaniel864 has repeatedly been creating articles that do not meet GNG and are often without references. This results in his output being draftified or Speedy deleted or AfD'd. Most recent is an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ai Tingting, where the comment from Adamdaniel864 was "Maybe in fact, I like to create hundreds of new pages about different people from different webs, to include together in the Wikipedia. Maybe to connect together between Wikipedia and other pages.." From User page and various Talk comments, this output appears to be a young person's enthusiasm, but there has been no evidence of developing competence. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this is becoming a bit of an issue. I feel bad about it because Adamdaniel864 shows every sign of being a good-faith editor, but it is very hard to get him to understand how Wikipedia works. One problem is the language barrier. He is from Malaysia (per his user page), and I don't know what his native language(s) is/are but it is not English. He professes to be a language enthusiast, and claims that he is in the process of learning a number of different languages from different language families. Unfortunately, he jumps off the deep end of the pool by editing and creating articles in languages he does not have a very good command of. He had a previous account blocked at Croatian Wikipedia – I'm not sure exactly what the problem was, but there are warnings about adding autotranslated text to articles at that hr.wiki user talk page. He had a conversation in English at uk.wiki, to one of their admins who was very helpful and patient, but it looks like he has run into the same kind of issues over there as well, now (per this TH thread). I'm getting a sense that Adamdaniel1864 is an enthusiastic young guy without any deeper understanding of how languages work, a little similar to the kid who created all those pages over at sco.wiki. --bonadea contributions talk 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed it is a good faith, but Wikipedia:Competence is required issue.

Proposal

A possible remedy would be to revoke his ability to draft new articles until he gains some more experience. Some more practice in contributing to existing articles may help, though I cannot say it will solve all of the issues, but is worth trying. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely blocked both Adamdaniel864 and his other account Слов'янська. After a thorough look through both's contributions, the CIR issues are deeper than age or a language barrier, and I do not see how a topic ban is going to work given the complete lack of response to multiple warnings across multiple projects so far. – Joe (talk) 18:11, 15 August 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.

Font size change

• My Wikipedia display's display font size has suddenly changed. Please how can I change it back? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ctrl-0 in windows.©Geni (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Geni: That had no effect; (I have Firefox.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Geni: When I am not in Wikipedia, my screen looks like before. There seems to be a font size setting that applies only in Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You'll likely get a quicker and more robust response at WP:VPT.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you done the classic hold down CTRL and scrolled with your mouse wheel by mistake? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Could be a WP:ITSTHURSDAY situation. My mobile browser does not like a lot of the new software things they roll out, so maybe that's the case. Hog Farm _Talk 17:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblocking policy

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) regarding changes to our unblocking policies. It can be found at this section here — Ched (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a proposal to fundamentally change WP:WHEEL. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Wheel deals with reinstating an admin action after being reverted. This is about reversing an initial action which does no rise to the level of wheel warring, not in fact and not in consequence. It is more closely related to the rule about discussing with the blocking admin before unblocking, or the recommendation to bring a block to WP:AN if there is no agreement, neither of which carry the "you will probably lose your mop" consequence if broken. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Yeah I am a little confused by what you are saying here as well. Could you please explain how it fundamentally changes wheel warring? PackMecEng (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it has the effect of turning the tables. Right now action's are not sacred and once reversed there is a strong prohibition from changing it again without consensus. With this change for the first 24 hours that prohibition would be reversed. But our policy already required discussion with the blocking admin and recommends(softer wording) going to WP:AN if disputed. The big difference is that unlike WHEEL there is no strong likelihood of quickly losing your bit. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it changes the second-mover advantage to a first-mover advantage, meaning that all an admin has to do is just go away and the account will remain blocked for a day. It's fairly basic stuff here that consensus takes at least that long to become clear, so all blocks, good or bad, would have a defacto minimum duration of 24 hours if the blocking admin wants it that way. I don't believe the intent is to enable abusive admins, but I do believe that would be the effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Not saying I support or oppose - I just thought something of this magnitude should have a wider viewership than just VP. (see: Shooting the messenger - and I'm not saying anyone is shooting said messenger.) I understand both viewpoints, so I doubt I'll !vote either way. — Ched (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Concern about page move close

No such user has done a WP:POINTY page move closure of War in Afghanistan (2001–present) with a very misleading edit summary "snow close",[55] even though it is clear to everyone that at least 30% of the participants opposed the page move and provided good arguments against the page move.

A message was already posted on their talk page to which they have responded by rejecting the fact that they misrepresent "WP:SNOW".[56]

I expect a speedy reversion of this page move. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Nothing WP:POINTY here, I closed hundreds of move requests, some late and some early like this one. It is sort-of urgent, with this article being among the most-viewed at the moment. In the same batch, I also WP:SNOW closed Talk:Afghanistan conflict (1978–present)#Requested move 16 August 2021 against the move, as well as the disruptive Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–2021)#Request move 19 August 2021 (before a single vote was cast).
To quote WP:SNOW, The snowball clause states: If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions. I understand the emotions and hopes are high, but IMO that discussion with over 100 !votes (did not count nor intend to) was deep into snow territory. Even if there were some doubts on 15 august when the RM was opened, there is now consensus among both sources and editors that the war is (practically) over. No such user (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

...And, for posterity, this is the correct diff of my close, where I did not reference "snow" either in summary or in text. The spirit of WP:SNOW, however, still applies. No such user (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"the war is (practically) over" - This is clear-as-day an improper close rationale due to WP:CRYSTAL, the giveaway being the use of the word "practically" which basically means it is not yet over. The discussion was in no sense in WP:SNOW territory even based purely on a head-count (which is not how this should be assessed), and the discussion was very much still ongoing with !votes still being cast. FOARP (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you telling that you are justified with an inappropriate close just because you have closed a few page move requests before? To say that "war is (practically) over" is clearly ambiguous and does not establish a clear-cut case. That was precisely the argument made by many opposing comments. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm telling that to clarify that it was not a single discussion that I closed out of the blue, but one among many on this week. You continue to assume bad faith, and this is frankly becoming tiring. No such user (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Point of Order No such user is not an admin, and did not note their RM close as a non-admin close. That said, I endorse the close; I personally feel that when there are this many concurrent proposals time is of the essence in closing those where consensus is clear. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

力 - I think you're right that WP:MR is the right forum for this. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@FOARP: I didn't explicitly say that, but yes. The close was reasonable enough that immediate admin action is not necessary; if you feel the close is incorrect WP:MR is the place to overturn a close of a move discussion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

But why do we have to wait for a week over MR outcome when this immediate problem needs to be fixed right here? There was no case of WP:SNOW that the controversial page move request was closed way too early. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Remember that time Wiki declared that Catalonia was an independent country? We ended up just merging the article about an independent Catalonia back into the article on the declaration of independence and the worst we got for it was a few articles in the Spanish press mocking Wiki for it. It seems the world is already used to Wiki making odd statements about present-day events that it eventually withdraws from. If the war in Afghanistan clearly continues (as is entirely possible at this point) then this decision should be easily overturned. FOARP (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the decision of the close, but I feel confident a MR would overturn because WP:RMNAC wasn't followed. "Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days)." We might make exceptions for SNOW closes, but No such user has made it clear that was not the rationale. If the goal is to get this over with as soon as possible, I think a self-revert from NSU followed by 3 or so more days of discussion is the way to go. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I've opened an MR here. Of course, if No such user self-reverts that would solve the issue and it can be withdrawn. FOARP (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of principle, I never declare NAC in my closes. Admin status is not required to close most discussions, including RMs, and my page mover userright suffices for most technical aspects. I've been around for 10 years and do not intend to seek admin status. The close should stand on its own for its merits, not because of the closer's badge. I fully stand by my decision to close the discussion (RM is chronically backlogged with discussions open for a month) and to close it early (precisely because it's a highly visible article), because no other outcome was plausible. No such user (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think "highly visible" is a reason to close early. I don't think "there's a chronic backlog" is a reason to close early. I don't know if any other outcomes were plausible, but I do feel SNOW was written to think through exactly that scenario. I agree with you on admin status and RM closure. I would support removing the NAC declaration from RMNAC. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• The close was fine. Per WP:NOTBURO, there's no need to re-open a close over minor technical matters. There is no way the close was going any way different than it did, most of the objections have nothing to do with the fact that the closure would have gone any other way. There's no need to demand a self-refert, there's no need to undo it. If an admin would have close this in a less snarky tone, it would still have gone the same way. --Jayron32 16:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Just an admin comment for these moves in the future, PLEASE leave redirects for controversial moves, do not uncheck the box that says leave a redirect. This page move left dozens and dozens of broken redirects which were deleted. It's better to leave redirects after a move and let the bots change the target of existing redirects because those actions can easily be undone should a move decision be reversed. Once the redirects are deleted, it's a lot more work to reconstruct them should they be wanted later. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Liz – I always check and fix primary redirects, as I did this time as well [57], as well as links from templates. Double redirects are fixed by bots such as EmausBot within hours, and they did the job this time as well [58]. So I'm not sure which broken redirects you're talking about? No such user (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

As someone who voted against the move, I do agree with No such user's close, here. They're right when they say the move is sort-of urgent, and it's clear that consensus was in favour of the move. I think they could perhaps have better labeled it as a NAC, but I also don't think it's that big a deal. I certainly don't think he did anything that I would call WP:POINTy. I can also understand (and sympathise with) the disagreement with the WP:SNOW label -- but again, I think given the direction of the discussion, No such user made the right choice. I'm endorsing the closure. — Czello 07:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Uninvolved colleague, please...

...pretty please look over Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Problem_editing_pattern_by_Kevin_McE:_part_2 and see if you think you can close it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Drmies: This shouldn't be closed yet, as there are still unanswered questions.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Impartial admin needed for closure request

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

---

I know there's a whole noticeboard for these, but this discussion needs a little more prompt attention, the discussion at Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Requested_move_12_August_2021 is getting a bit chippy, and it's been open the requisite seven days, so it can be closed promptly. It's certainly attracted enough commentary as well for an admin to close at this point, there's little to be gained from leaving it open longer, and we want to avoid this getting into the "more heat than light" territory, which these discussions have been known to do. I'd have closed it myself, but I voted in the discussion, and it would be inappropriate for me to do so. Thanks in advance. --Jayron32 17:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader has NAC-closed it and the page has been moved by GorillaWarfare. Isabelle ^🔔 02:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both for helping out. --Jayron32 11:09, 20 August 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.

Redirect my mistake?

When filling out the edit description while archiving a post, I accidentally linked the wrong page ([59]). Is it possible for an admin to add a redirect for me? Apparently, the page I posted in error is blacklisted.

WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@WikiIsKnowledge: that is not necessary, it is fine if your edit summary is broken there. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux, okay. Thanks! WikiIsKnowledge (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@WikiIsKnowledge: It's not possible for an admin to change either. It's your own talk page also, so likely nobody else would see it either. In other situations, however, you could make a dummy edit and put a followup edit summary, if you thought something was confusing enough to correct.—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The coming Universal Code of Conduct essay

Since discussion about WikiMedia writing and polishing their Universal Code of Conduct has reached our shores, I'd just like to point out that here, at most, this code might qualify as a unendorsed essay about the fourth of Wikipedia's WP:PILLARS, civility. These five pillars, and the policy and guideline system, have worked well as W.'s codes since 2001, and contain nothing about an overlapping code of conduct from off-site. As a self-governing website with established editor-endorsed sets of rules and regs, an official-sounding attempt to alter these should be seen as both a good faith overreach and, perhaps, an essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As Wikimedia owns the website, including En:Wiki, and has stated that the UCOC will be compulsory and that Sysops and the like (presumably including admins) will be required to sign up to it.It represents a lot more than an essay. Pretending or doesn't exist or that en:wiki can just ignore it is not a sensible option.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I would think that this would qualify as a guideline about civility, maybe even policy itself. Reading what the current state of the UCOC is, it seems fairly reasonable. There are ongoing draft review discussions if there's something that anyone takes issue with. I don't see the point of people "signing up to it" as that seems very inefficent, I'd imagine it'd just be something that people in general are expected to adhere to. Clovermoss (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has a code of conduct, the five pillars. Those, along with its policies, guidelines, ongoing liquid consensus, and then the essays and such, have kept the place running for 20 years. Doesn't make a difference what an administrator signs as a private editor, they can individually use the essay as reasoning but can't correctly call it a Wikipedia code of conduct, policy, or even a guideline, so other considerations would probably have to enter into any Wikipedia decision based on it until a consensus is reached in an RfC as to what to call it. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Quote "The UCoC applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces. The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will respect and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct:...Users with enhanced rights such as, but not limited to: sysop, bureaucrat, steward, interface admin, checkuser".Nigel Ish (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Since we're talking about the UCOC, then I would like to share a link to review the current proposed enforcement guidelines: Wikipedia:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement draft guidelines review. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Please, I have to know what happens when an unstoppable Code Enforcement Officer meets an immovable Cow (Man) trapped in the turnbuckle! El_C 09:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Code Enforcement Officer? Yeah, that'll go over like a lead balloon. --Jayron32 14:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

While it may not be popular with many here, UCOC almost certainly will happen here sooner or later (although much of it only codifies things we already claim to do). En:Wiki will need to get its act together if we don't want to see a lot of interaction with enforcement officials from outside our community (as a minimum, we will need to make sure that we cover all of the requirements of UCOC, and we will have to make sure that we can work properly with the mysterious "centralized reporting and processing tool for UCoC violations" that is being developed by the Wikimedia Foundation.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I've been informed that due to mocking the WMF, they have suspended all payments to me. And since they pay me in hugs and kisses, now I'm sad. El_C 15:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

*hugs* ~TNT (she/they • talk) 15:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@El C: As a WMF insider, I've pulled some strings to get your pay restored. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The entire problem with WP:FRAM, and one that The Foundation appears to have not learned by, as they are doubling down on the mistakes they made at WP:FRAM, is that foundation people, is that double secret probation is not a system that engenders trust and faith in the community they are supporting. The idea that arbitrary sanctions can be enforced by people from outside the community with no accountability to that community is the issue. There are ways the Foundation could help with problems of civility and harassment at Wikipedia, but having a nebulous "Code Enforcement Officer" empowered to act on random complaints sounds like a system rife with possibilities for abuse by the harassers themselves, with little chance of actually strengthening the community. --Jayron32 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Preach it, brother! I'd like to see a Lulz Enforcement Officer figure out, say, the harassment/LTA indef block (with TPA disabled) that I've just handed to KonsTomasz a few minutes ago. But I guess there's money to spend, so maybe they'll figure it out super-fast and super-correctly! Anyway, what do I know? I only joined the project in 2004, became an admin in 2005, and been unrelentingly spamming ever since. //Cow Man out! El_C 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the members of this committee are meant to be community members (hopefully elected ones). Enforcement Officer is unclearly defined, but it sounds like it just means local sysops with training, but I could be completely wrong, since the definition and scope of these officers is very poorly defined, and the defined term ("Code Enforcement Officer") is not even used again in the document except to say this group has to "affirm" their respect for the UCOC. This part is lousy drafting IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

In that case, level-up XP for being a sysop with a WMF Lulz Enforcement Officer (LEO) rank! Sorry, but I am wiki-LEO, so stand down, I have a license to lulz. Community? What community? It's busy, it doesn't want any! El_C 17:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It feels like neither the Wikimedia code enforcement officers ("Show me your edits!") or involuntary signing of promises to enforce (don't even know what that means, Wikipedians are free to sign or not sign anything they want) will make it very far here as a top-down dictate, too much free thought through my random and limited knowledge of the community. I haven't read the code as yet, have come late to the discussion, but am guessing it will be larger than the ideal of printing it on one side of a piece of paper. And hopefully it is formatted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline so it could be RfC'ed for consensus and adoption as a policy or guideline. If Wikipedia is to stay Wikipedia, with a community of editors who've developed the machine and kept it running for 20 years, this code of conduct, and such things as code enforcement officers, would probably have to enter it through a vigorous on-site discussion and consensus (if I'm correctly estimating the independent spirit of Wikipedians). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I don't understand the utility of adding these LEOs, here, to the English Wikipedia project when WP:T&S already exists. What is this extra layer of bureaucracy even for? BTW, I've dealt with T&S (as well as WP:EMERGENCY) on many occasions and they were always professional and prompt. If it ain't broken (etc.)... El_C 17:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of extra layers of bureaucracy is, as always, to provide employment to bureaucrats, and to make the top-layer boss-bureaucrats seem more important. As for fixing things that aren't broken, when it isn't pure make-work it is generally a displacement activity taken on to avoid trying to fix things that are, since doing so could lead to awkward questions about who is in charge of the 'fixing'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Something must be done about incivility. This is something, therefore it must be done. - MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I am curious how it'll work on projects like enwiki. I mean there are incidents that the community apparently doesn't deal well with (c.f. the ongoing RfC apparently inspired by Wikipedia:Unblockables), but we already have a method for resolving conduct issues by fiat (the Arbitration Committee). For those cases that even ArbCom don't want to touch, I guess a useful question to first answer is 'why not?'. It's not like they're restricted by policy; much of the UCOC was already either enwiki policy as-written or as-applied. If ArbCom can't fix those problems, why would another fiat body be able to?

I guess there is a slight difference in scope (ArbCom's is "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve", and U4C's is "Systematic failure[s] to follow the UCoC" / "cross-wiki UCoC violations"). The U4C's scope seems to include all of ArbCom's first scope. So, are all single-user conduct issues that the community can't fix now going to fall into the remit of the U4C Committee? If so, how will this committee interact with ArbComs on overlapping scopes? The enforcement draft seems to omit touching on that (rather important) detail. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The UCOC is not aimed specifically at English Wikipedia, on the contrary. There are 300 language Wikipedias and countless other Wiki projects, who are significantly under-resourced/have far more issues of conduct enforcement/baseline standards. I'll admit I don't fully understand what will be different for an existing and highly engaged community like enwp; but I am not too worried about it either. The issues of nationalist editing/holocaust revisionism are documented on Croation and Japanese Wikipedia for example. Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm reminded also of the case Meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Til Eulenspiegel who was a sysop and bureaucrat until an extreme example of homophobia lead to it being removed followed by that global ban then a WMF ban. In small projects I imagine it's easy for one or two admins to ride roughshod over the community. We often get reports of alleged administrative abuse in other projects. Most of these are probably nonsense, but I always fear some may not be. But there's also the question over what is 'abuse', which the alleged problems with the Japanese and Croatian wikipedias may touch on. But coming back to the Codex Sinaiticus/Til Eulenspiegel case, it was never clear to me that it was a case of one administrator riding roughshod over the community, or whether the community that existed even if whatever blocks hadn't happened, would have been supportive of the kind of actions Codex Sinaiticus took. I acknowledge it's impossible to know anyway. Even if you go through all the blocks and work out which ones were dodgy, for anyone who was blocked we can't know much they would have contributed and even without being blocked, editors may never join or just leave when they see the blocks and other behaviour is the norm. Also for those who weren't banned, it's hard to know how they truly feel. Anything before Codex Sinaiticus was banned may be affected by fear of what Codex Sinaiticus would do. Anything after and well having seen what happened to Codex Sinaiticus they may have feared the same thing or at least that it would be useless. But my ultimate point is that while I have no idea if it was the case in the Amharic wikipedia, since it's hard to deny that views on what sort of conduct is okay varies quite significantly throughout the world there is always going to be the chance that in on some wikimedia project, what they allow and enforce is going to be something we find wrong or even disgusting and vice versa. And although Codex Sinaiticus's problems extended beyond the Amharic wikipedia, I assume as IMO was shown in the global ban discussion, that most English Wikipedians are perfectly fine with enforcing certain universal values no matter whether they conflict with whatever local norms and values may exist. So it seems to me more a question of what those values should be and how far we should go in enforcing them and how that should interact with what the local Wiki is doing. The UCoC seems to be pushing for there to be greater enforcement of such universal values so situations less than the extremes of the Codex Sinaiticus are dealt with. Nil Einne (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Speaking only for myself and no other member of the UCoC enforcement drafting committee, I think the feedback around the name Code Enforcement Officer has been valuable. It's not something I spent a lot of time talking about in committee work and so appreciate all criticism of that term. I will say that that a core idea is getting a little lost (i.e. looking at Andy's and El C's comments above) but the idea with these people was that most UCoC enforcement would not be some new bureaucratic layer. Enforcement, to the extent it's necessary, would instead be entrusted to projects and the people on projects already tasked by those projects. So for us that would be some combination of admin, CUOS, and arbitrators. In extreme circumstances it would be T&S. This is because most violations of the UCoC will not be the sort of thorny harassment/incivility issues that many are thinking about when they hear UCoC. Most violations of the UCoC will be vandalism or the more routine kinds of harassment that we have sophisticated policies and procedures to handle, but which many small projects do not.

What is undecided is where local enforcement needs to stop in favor of some global enforcement. There is some good discussion going on in this thread about that topic. And if people weigh in here on enwiki that's fine. That feedback will be sent along to the committee - in what form I don't know because I haven't seen it yet but I know it will be read and passed along. But what I fear is that feedback which is only left here on enwiki will get lumped together and be 1 data point even if say 50 editors participate and say the same thing. And then we'll also get 1 data point in a conversation where 4 editors participate in some other language and that will also be 1 data point. Then those two data points are considered in equal weight moving forward. Where as if the feedback is left on meta it is more likely to be seen by members of the committee and so even if the summary again makes it a single data point, the fact that 50 editors are saying it will be felt in a different way. Even here I expect that the feedback among our editor base to be diverse and not always agree. That's great too. BUt there will be a lot we do agree on and it's incredibly important that both those places we agree and those places we don't are heard and thought about by the drafting committee. And so my fear is that if we stay in our enwiki safe space, then we will have a situation where we get to ratification (and meaningful ratification is a hill I am ready to die on, especially because it didn't happen with the UCoC text itself) and it fails because the objections and the intensity those objections were held in didn't translate up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Well, I'd like to join El C in praising T&S and EMERGENCY. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• Heh, in fairness, DFO, this is how it usually goes. Me to T&S: I gots an urgent call-the-FBIs case! T&S: Sigh. Forwarding to EMERGENCY. Me to EMERGENCY: I gots an complex international stalking case, call the lawlyers, stat! EMERGENCY: Sigh. Forwarding to T&S. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 20:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  What if you get Wing Attack Plan R? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Then they send you a survival kit with which a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas. Deor (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

References

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ says it all. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

BTW, WMF, if you read this: Japanese_Wikipedia#Criticism seems to only be scratching the surface. Maybe some money$ should go toward not making the 2nd largest -language Wikipedia an embarrassment and a stain on the movement...? Just sayin'. El_C 20:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Clerking at Afghanistan pages

At Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, I tried to start a discussion thread on a new proposal to deal with the wide variety of page split/move proposals. Over the course of 14 hours, this was re-factored into a WP:RM proposal, speedy-closed, and archived.

I feel this is inappropriate.

I feel the way to resolve this is to have more admins (or experienced non-admins) clerking the talk pages. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood. I will stop clerking at those pages. (Have grown tired of doing so anyway because of the constant squabbling.) But, it would be helpful to have only one discussion open at one time since having multiple discussions simply paralyzes the pages. Maybe an admin should do something about that. Muhibm0307 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you identified the pages where these discussions are happening. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Liz, Of course! Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Taliban are the pages where the conflicting discussions are occurring. Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muhibm0307: Could you please revert your no consensus close? It's not particularly helpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done, MJL! Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

And altruists everywhere send thoughts and prayers to the people of Afghanistan. Keep up the great work, Twatter! El_C 16:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Twatter to Taliban: Welcome! We so tolerant. *Hugs* But don't Trump it up! https://www.timesofisrael.com/banned-by-facebook-but-not-twitter-taliban-maneuver-in-a-social-media-dilemma/ El_C 02:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh jeez. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to attach the RFC link... Because expressly affirming being, and I quote: "racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Semtic [etc.]" is allowed. Twatter, you've done it again! 👍 El_C 02:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy of Pakistan

The article Monarchy of Pakistan was moved by an admin in 2016 to Dominion of Pakistan, without a consensus or any proper discussion. The reason they gave was that the monarchy article was "an unsourced duplicate" of the dominion article, and thus they moved the page.

I have now gathered sourced content regarding the same, enough for a stand-alone article. Please tell me what to do. Thanks. Peter Ormond 💬 15:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) The merge was not made using administrative powers, so it's just an editorial matter. If you go to this version of the page you can click the edit button as normal and overwrite the redirect with your new fully sourced article. If you've written the article in draft space or your user space and anybody else other than you has edited it as well, you'll need to move the draft to the old title (to preserve the edit history). An administrator can help you with that - see the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ◦ Trey Maturin 15:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I've written it all by myself. Do I need to move it then? Peter Ormond 💬 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Where's the draft of this? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

See User:Peter Ormond/P. Peter Ormond 💬 15:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Have no fear. I've completed the task, for you. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 15:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

No prob. I owe it all to cut, copy & paste :) GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: You forgot to provide proper attribution when copying & pasting, but Peter Ormond took care of that in their edit summary here. Just sayin'. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. He built the ship (draft page), I launched it (cut & past, replacing re-direct) & now it's a float, for anyone to (edit) sail :) GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

Can an administrator please suppress recent edits by 2600:1700:de80:d40:79d2:467d:4e80:45a8 on Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think I've done them all, please check. I also semi-protected the article for six months. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

WP:DENY HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 05:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a sockpuppet of User:Skh sourav halder. Daluwatte (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Honest sock-masters, are rare. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Honest sock masters, uncommon on this wiki. Perhaps a joe job? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish and GoodDay: - Nah, just an LTA. This happens every so often. Hog Farm Talk 17:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC) LTA joe job or puppet of Bishal Khan? meh blocked whatever. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Honest sock masters I Wonder why they do it Just crazy, I guess Dumuzid (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC) Vandals, socks and such Time wasted, theirs and ours too A silly circle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC) It reminds me of a phenomena I've run into lately...editors with no main User page who make an edit to create a User page with a deletion tag on it. If they didn't want a User page, why create it and ask for it to be deleted in the same edit? I must have run into this a dozen times recently. Bewildering. Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC) FWIW, reported to SRG: Bishal Khan was banned by the WMF a while back. JavaHurricane 10:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC) In my experience, while honest sockmasters are a tiny minority of all sockmasters, they are nowhere near as rare as you might think. It is, of course, a kind of trolling. The user page created with a deletion tag already in place, as described by Liz, is more different to understand, and yet probably much more common. Occasionally, but unusually, it's a copy and paste of a deleted user page, evidently copied after deletion tagging to try to save it. It's possible that at other times it may be the same thing, only transferred from the original account to a sockpuppet, but as far as I remember I've never seen any evidence of that. Again, it may be a form of trolling, but I've seen it from editors whose other editing doesn’t look like trolling or vandalism. I suppose it could be some sort of misunderstanding of what "db-user" means, but overall I really don't understand it. 🤔 JBW (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC) That's it. The editors I run into who do this typically have a few edits (less than a dozen) and no vandalism. Some have had accounts for years. Why they suddenly decide to create and delete a user page is peculiar. But the only trouble they cause is needing an admin to delete their page so it hasn't caused me to continue to keep tabs on them. Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Amansio Paraschiv

Hello,

The page is getting vandalised by IPs although the first result of the fight was overturned and I brought sources. I request 30 days of protection! Thank you .karellian-24 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

.karellian-24, this isn't what this noticeboard is for. These requests should be submitted to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase. Anyway, I protected for a day, with a recommendation for the IP to use the article talk page (currently a blank page). El_C 15:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Creating the "Chris Chan" article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per 69.172.145.94. Again, bleak times. If you're looking for a trustworthy overview of the CC WP:BLPCRIME facet of this (though not the TTU angle), Dr. Grande did a ten minute analysis of this on YouTube a couple of weeks ago. Naturally, it involves extremely disturbing content, so maybe pet a cat or a chipmunk, instead...? El_C 17:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Just drop it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have created the article on Chris Chan at User:Veverve/ChristineWC. I would like to move it to Chris Chan, but this space is blocked since 2009, and Christine Weston Chandler is blocked since 2019. The surname Chris Chan being the most common name given to Christine (like for Maddox (writer)) as can be seen by the titles of the articles, I would like my article to be moved to the main space at Chris Chan. Veverve (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Already a consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Chris_Chan. Veverve (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Chris_Chan ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Strong oppose per WP:BLP, WP:IAR, and the last thread. There is no article on this subject that could be worth the antipathy it would generate. Vaticidalprophet 14:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC) I've removed the BLP violation. Whether this is worthy of an article, and whether we can trust to article to remain BLP-vio free in mainspace, is another question, but the main issue has been fixed. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Sorry, I did not know there had already been a consensus on this as @ProcrastinatingReader: showed me. Veverve (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Unclosing this. GorillaWarfare, you previously deleted a draft about this individual, with all revisions oversighted. I did not view the content of that draft, and I don't know anything about the subject matter, but I see that Veverve has created a userspace draft on the same subject at User:Veverve/ChristineWC, which I can only imagine has similar content and sourcing. Please can you comment on whether that also requires deletion and oversight? Girth Summit (blether) 11:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC) First thing I notice is it uses their deadname, despite their not having been notable under it. I'm pretty sure we only use the deadname in an article if they were notable with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC) I used her former name, because I saw it in some articles which I cited. Your comment made me do some research, and I found MOS:DEADNAME which I did not know existed. Veverve (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC) Is there any reason to think this person is notable outside of 1 recent event? That one event is an alleged crime so per BLPCRIME that content should stay out if/until there is a conviction. Can we actually assume this BLP could exist without violating the do no harm aspect of BLPs? Springee (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC) No it can't. As in the previous thread about Chris Chan, this article will become an immediate target for internet trolls and attacks. There was a consensus earlier that the subject is not notable, and that it would become a timesink for protection. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC) This entire discourse makes me wish we could nuke it from orbit, just to be sure. And by "it," I mean "the entirety of human civilization." Cheers, and happy Monday. Dumuzid (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: so User:Veverve/ChristineWC is all right, even if relies upon pretty much the same crappy sources as listed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Chris_Chan? --Calton | Talk 14:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Jimi isn't dead, God just asked for guitar lessons. El_C 11:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep all y'all posted if additional drafts come through AfC. This is like the fourth since they were arrested. Bkissin (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Can monitor log of 1159 ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I did check the log of that filter and it stopped an edit about Chris Chandler who is an article subject on Wikipedia. Maybe the filter can be tweaked as there are legitimate edits for someone with a similar name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

while efforts could be made to decrease FPs, they may also miss legitimate cases. Since the filter is log only and likely temporary, it’s not really worth the effort IMO. Most entries caught by the filter were the subject (but are now removed from the log, either due to individual revdel or OS of the log entry). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Also note that the filter is logging-only. The "Chris Chandler" false positive did go through just fine. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 15:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's pretty obvious that the only conceivable reason for creating an article about this subject is to further the trolling that has been ongoing for the last 14 years and made their life a misery, so why are those who wish do do so still able to edit Wikipedia? If anyone should be blocked or banned it is those people, and I only use the word "people" because to give them their true name would be a personal attack. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• I made this point on GorillaWarfare's talk page by pointing out that if I still had the tools, I would be treating this the same way any other admin would treat sustained harassment attempts - with blocks. We need to start doing this. If harassment isn't reason enough to block, then the egregious BLP issues are. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm ready to block as necessary (not that this is the most sympathetic subject ever), I've only become aware of this last week and it's somehow lowered my already depressed outlook on humanity all around. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Add me to that list of admins who will block first, ask questions later if I see more drafts on her. Enough is enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to mark any article or draft we see about her for speedy as an attack page? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering the aim of any such page is harassment, I don't see why not. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of spreading awareness, since it may well be the case some people haven't read the original ANI, can an admin unsalt Chris Chan (salted since 2009 with a non-helpful summary) and resalt it with links to the ANIs in the log message? Likely someone trying to create this will see the log message on that page, at least. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that article specifically was about CWC, but rather someone legitimately named "Chris Chan". (The "Chan" here is a Japanese honorific and is correctly spelt hyphenated, i.e. "Chris-Chan".) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 00:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

One was some random person, and the other was the subject in question here. I'll take care of it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Uh, no. "Chan" is an abbreviation of "Chandler," not a Japanese honorific. All I have to say on this topic is that many far less notable e-personalities have articles on them, and that the intense hostility that springs up whenever this is discussed suggests that "there will be no Chris Chan article" is something of an unwritten rule among power users. Zacwill (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Once again, everyone should just drop it.User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 04:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why can't we have a draft, but without the harassment? Even if only to collect sources for if notability is reached as more are published. Benjamin (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC) No no no no no. This is not what Wikipedia does. Take it elsewhere, or even better yet, don't. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC) This is impossible, as the entire point of the article is to harass her by its existence. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Why does it necessarily have to be that way? Benjamin (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC) Benjamin, how familiar are you with this entire saga? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC) I realize that the subject has attracted attention, if that's what you're asking. Benjamin (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC) There's been a 14+-year-long effort to create an article on her as part of a (still ongoing) harassment campaign against her. I'm not at liberty to explain the whys of it but suffice it to say that a key aspect of the harassment is basically creating a Wikipedia article to further these ends because of how well-known Wikipedia is and how high search engines rank us in their search results. This is one case where the WP:BLP issue has nothing to do with sourcing or the claims themselves; the person in question is (and always has been) at best a WP:BLP1E case and so the harassment would be solely due to the article even existing. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 03:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC) I'm not saying there should be an article if notability is indeed not reached, but we should be able to discuss the sourcing and notability in the first place without harassing. Benjamin (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC) That's already been done, even for the most recent incarnations of the article, and the consensus is that the sourcing still doesn't demonstrate notability and this is at best a WP:BLP1E situation. See the collapsible above, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1074#Chris Chan, and User talk:GorillaWarfare#Chris Chan Draft. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 04:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC) (Link added 04:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)) We can't even see what sources were in the most recent version. Benjamin (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC) You are totally free to do a draft on some other website. However, after the explanations given above, pushing further here look like a lack of competence or a lack of care. Is this an experiment to see how far it is possible to encourage harassment before sanctions occur? Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• Noting for the record that I've semi'd Texas Tech University for one month (diff) due to unspeakable horror. Admins: I urge you to not look at the revdel'd edits. Let me take the hit for you. That said, though I'm wary of speculating, the chances that this angle will end up blowing up so as to be covered by beyond-local mainstream sources seems considerable, probably more so than the CC matter in isolation (I wouldn't even bother writing this otherwise). That's as much as I'm prepared to speak about this at this time. Bleak times. El_C 01:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• You have my sympathy. I've heard some of the TTU related things and it's pretty soul crushing, to say the least. Other articles that may end up getting hit may be Ruckersville, Virginia, Rob Bell (Virginia politician), and Charlottesville, Virginia. Two out of the three have protections on the page already, but it's a semi-protection. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Only as a comment, I think there is potential, pre-current events around Chan based on past sources, to have a neutral/BLP compliant article that would not be an attack article, but no way, no how would I be inclined to create it now or any time in the next two or three years, and if it were created, we'd need to have it under immediate full protection and talk page semi protection. The current actions above to seek and destroy any drafts created right now is 100% the right way to go simply because that article will be a honeypot for trolls that are looking at every angle to slander Chan and anyone associated with them while there's still new coverage based on the arrest. --Masem (t) 16:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• This is not the first time that an article's creation protection (aka WP:SALTing) has been challenged, and there exists global consensus on Wikipedia about how to handle such challenges, which is documented at the WP:SALT section of the WP:PROTECT policy: Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator), file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level, or use the deletion review process. To make a convincing case for re-creation, it is helpful to show a draft version of the intended article when filing a request.
  In this case, administrators have been contacted (via RFPP and several AN/ANI reports), and there is a clear and strong consensus of administrators to leave in place the creation-protection based on our WP:BLP and WP:NOT policies, and WP:N guideline. There is also a consensus of administrators to leave in place the creation-protection of drafts per WP:BLP. According to WP:SALT, anyone wanting to appeal that consensus has only one remaining avenue, and it's deletion review (WP:DRV). (I'd have closed this thread with this statement but I'm not an admin.) Levivich 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Can we close this discussion? For those who are confused, the tl;dr is as follows: Ms Chandler has been "documented" (if one can call it that) for the better part of 15 years now. This off-site activity has resulted in several instances of harrassment of unrelated people. Creating an article on Chandler here would potentially feed into that harrassment, whilst bringing marginal benefit to the project (Ms Chandler may be notable, but would be very marginal at that). Recent allegations of serious criminal activity by Ms Chandler are another can of worms where the documentation here would likely violate WP:CRYSTAL, wp:NOTNEWS and of course our harrassment policy. Additionally, there is evidence to suggest that there are other people who were in contact with Chandler who are themselves accused of extremely serious crimes including possesion of or distribution of child pornography - coverage of that would likely violate WP:CHILDPROTECT, not to mention the BLPCRIME problems inherent in having such an article. In short - there is very little to be gained making this article, and quite a bit of hazard. As El_C mentioned - due to the unprecedented seriousness of the alleged (and so far unproven!) crimes by Chandler and their associates, there is a possibility that this will blow up beyond local news - if that happens, there may be a stronger argument for making the article, but let's cross that bridge whe we get there. 69.172.145.94 (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Also - perhaps we could link the closed discussion + rationale for why not to have an article on Chandler on the talk pages of "hot pages" that keep getting hit. At least then we won't be relitigating the topic. 69.172.145.94 (talk) 08:02, 19 August 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.

Continued disruptive COI editing at RPSI

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.

---

• Diningcarriage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

@Diningcarriage has been reasonably identified one of a number of COI editor by admins at Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RSPI), some having a negative COI and possibly intending to simply to disruptive. Whether intentional or not that has certainly interferred with my update of that article. I believe I, and others, have issued almost every form of warning imaginable. Scrutinisers of this must consider whether I am issuing warnings to gain an editorial advantage, and must scrutinise my actions in totality. I would have likely to have got through the most of the update this weekend, RL, distractions and disruption to this article have all intervened; and my work on this is suspended. An option would be to stubify, work on a user page and then copy page over the top. I would like to collaberate in such as enterprise but realistically a collaberative effort in draft could equally be interfered with. The final edits questioning my improvements were at [60] which I am currently leaving in situ to de-escalate the edit war but leaves article in hiatus. Obviously risk of possible WP:BOOMERANG on myself but the minimum would be voluntary I-BANs/T-BANs as required. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• I apologize for inadvertently posting this to WP:AN rather than WP:ANI. I will be placing at WP:ANI and this discussion should be closed by a clerk who may WP:TROUT me. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:36, 22 August 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.

Announcement

See User_talk:Secret for people that know/knew him who want to pass on best wishes, prayers or support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

KosomPolskii

I suspect that @KosomPolskii: is a sock of recently blocked IP 59.92.227.87. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week due to clear behavioral evidence of block evasion. Warned that further evasion will result in an indefinite block. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Listing of AIV messages has disappeared

Can anyone tell me why I am not seeing a drop down list of uses of the {{AIV}} templated messages at the top of the page when I edit Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? It's always been there before. JBW (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the "AIV notation templates" collapsible? I still see it there, and I don't see any recent changes to {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism}}. What do you see when you go directly to that editnotice page? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, I have now found that the problem occurs only if I am editing on my phone, not on a computer, and only if I am in MonoBook, not if I switch to Vector. Presumably, therefore, it is all part of a very irritating change which happened a while ago, which again applies only in MonoBook on a phone. The normal interface has been replaced by a very different one, with silly little icons at the top of the page instead of the normal links, both those which belong at the top and those that belong at the left hand side of the screen. It is a nuisance, partly because some things are more awkward to do in the changed interface, and in a few cases as far as I can see impossible, and partly because even when things aren't any more awkward, they are just different, and I don't want to have to fiddle around finding how to do them, instead of just continuing in the way that I already know. Does anyone know if there's any way I can return to the proper MonoBook interface, and turn off these annoying changes that someone has decided to impose on me without giving me the option? I can avoid the problem by switching to Vector, but I don't see why I should: I was happier with MonoBook. (Perhaps I should say that I use the so-called "desktop" setting on my phone, not the stupid "Mobile" version.) If anyone can offer any help I shall be grateful. JBW (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• If it's of any interest to anyone, I've now found the answer. I just had to untick the "Enable responsive mode" option in my preferences. The description given is "Adapt skin to available viewport area", which explains why the problem occurred only on my phone. The change did actually make some things a little easier on a small screen, but unfortunately it made some other things significantly more difficult, and some actually impossible (such as viewing the collapsible AIV template list). At the most 3/10 for the implementers of the feature, I'm afraid. JBW (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)