Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	22	20	42
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	7	5	12
RfD	0	0	39	10	49
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 31 sockpuppet investigations
• 28 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 48 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 15 requested closures
• 44 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 12 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 9111 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Erigavo 2025-01-09 16:56 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 HBR Layout metro station 2025-01-08 15:06 indefinite edit,move Redirect create protection per Articles for deletion/HBR Layout metro station; requested at WP:RfPP Ivanvector Gulf of Mexico 2025-01-08 07:54 2026-01-08 07:54 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Biden Vice Presidential staff 2025-01-08 07:36 indefinite move Reducing move protection from admin-level to extended-confirmed. Moving doesn't affect transclusions. SilverLocust Dheeran Chinnamalai 2025-01-07 19:12 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Immatain 2025-01-07 19:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Skibidi Toilet 2025-01-07 15:14 indefinite move Page-move vandalism Ivanvector United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories 2025-01-07 07:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1267881625#United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Newslinger Kamala 2025-01-07 03:10 2025-04-07 03:10 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel) 2025-01-06 22:59 2026-01-06 22:59 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry ToBeFree Narayana 2025-01-06 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan List of Indian films of 2024 2025-01-06 19:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Kodikaal Vellalar 2025-01-06 19:17 2026-01-06 19:17 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE; requested at WP:RfPP Ahecht List of highest-grossing films in India 2025-01-06 19:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Module:Location map/data/United States 2025-01-06 18:01 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2574 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Year births or deaths category header/core 2025-01-06 18:01 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4774 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Year births or deaths category header 2025-01-06 18:01 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4776 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Draft:Simaran Kaur 2025-01-06 17:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, socking/BE DoubleGrazing Draft:Manonesh Das 2025-01-06 12:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated, socking DoubleGrazing Third Anglo-Afghan War 2025-01-06 06:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Justin Trudeau 2025-01-06 06:26 2025-01-13 06:26 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Fathi Shaqaqi 2025-01-06 03:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1267645220#Fathi Shaqaqi Newslinger Wikipedia:Meetup/San Francisco/WikipediaDay/2025 2025-01-05 23:04 2025-02-05 23:04 edit,move Pharos Lodha 2025-01-05 20:11 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Purbiya (soldiers) 2025-01-05 20:00 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Template:Racing-Reference driver 2025-01-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2504 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Infobox weather event/styles.css 2025-01-05 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Sarfaraz K. Niazi 2025-01-05 17:34 2026-01-05 17:34 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree

Call for close re mention of COVID-19 pandemic in the lead at Donald Trump

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Talk:Donald Trump#COVID-19 in the lead? (take 69) was listed at ANRFC a little over two weeks ago, following months of contentious and pretty messy debate at Talk:Donald Trump. Myself and several others at ANRFC have highlighted the strong need for an experienced closer to come in and put a cap on the spiraling discussion, but no one has stepped up yet, so I'm escalating to the main noticeboard here. Is anyone willing to take this on?

(As always with posts of this sort, everyone here is reminded to please keep your comments to meta-discussion about the process of the close only. Comments arguing for or against possible outcomes of the close should be collapsed.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Sdkb: That's not an WP:RfC, nor apparently was it ever one, so it lacks any sort of officialness or need for any sort of official close (and it shouldn't be listed at ANRFC, nor should it be DNAUed). There is however an RfC on the subject on that talkpage, which was opened August 5, so that has a few more weeks to run: Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: A statement on Trump and Covid-19 in the lead. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, the call for a close is a call to close the entire group of discussions, which includes both the RfCs and the non-RfCs. They're all on the same topic, just framed differently, so it wouldn't make any sense to try to close them separately. Calls for a formal close existed even before the launch of the currently open RfC, which is just another in a long series of attempts to try to frame things in a way that actually produces an outcome. No one has !voted on the RfC in the past week, which for Donald Trump's page is about as strong an indicator of exhaustion as you could ever find. I think most participants on all sides agree that it's long past due for a close, and that it would not be beneficial to let it run for a few more weeks. The closer will be able to draw from about 10 different massive discussions going back months, so there's zero question that there has been ample opportunity for participation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not how things work on Wikipedia. Unless something is an RfC, it's just a discussion thread on a talkpage and has no site-wide input or official weight. That's why there have been so many threads on that page without resolution. Now that there is an actual RfC (which is the only way to really resolve things that have been discussed endlessly without RfC and without resolution), the matter must wait until the RfC has run for at least a month. Anything that really needs to be officially resolved with an administrator's binding close must be done via RfC (otherwise, someone will just open yet another thread, or open an RfC). Softlavender (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, I'm pretty^{update: I just checked and confirmed} sure at least one of the previous discussions was an RfC, and it's not as though the current one is better formulated or has wider participation than the previous ones. It's a continuation of the sprawling mess, not much more or less definitive than the sprawling mess that came before it. If you think further discussion is somehow needed, fine, although I think you'd be very strained to make that argument. But if your view is just that we need to stick to the letter of the bureaucracy because those are The Rules™, then I'd suggest re-reading WP:IAR, which I hope is still alive enough that we're capable of cutting off RfCs that have very clearly gone long past the point of usefulness. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't sound to me like you understand what an WP:RFC is and don't even want to check and see if there have been any (if there have been, the word RFC will be in the thread title). If there was a previous RfC, with an official close, then that is a binding decision and the decision will be implemented as official. The discussion you are talking about is merely a non-official article-talk discussion between people who have that page on their watch list, to see if they can come to a consensus. Since consensus seems unclear (namely, you're asking for someone to close it), that indicates that there is not yet a clear enough consensus to be implemented. If you want an official administrative close on something, propose it in an WP:RFC, with a clear opening statement that people can !vote support or oppose on. Otherwise, all you've got is a meandering mess that someone is going to contest the details of the minute it is acted upon. WP:RFC is for issues such as this that have had extensive discussions without success. They get site-wide input, last one month, and get official closes. That's why we have them. Softlavender (talk) 09:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, if you're going to link WP:RFC, then note the duration section, which states pretty clearly There is no required minimum or maximum duration. I agree with the spirit of your point that RfCs are often a useful tool for formalizing messy discussions, but your comments do not give me the impression that you are assessing the situation here on its own terms rather than blindly adhering to your understanding of the rules. We've both made our point; let's wait for some others here to weigh in now. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• Softlander is correct. This should have been done as a proper RFC. As is, it can only establish a local consensus, not a global consensus, and is likely to be contested as soon as it closes. Issues this large aren't typically solved with local discussions only, and require a real RFC with input outside of that talk page. A piecemeal approach isn't a solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Dennis Brown, as is? There have been multiple tagged RfCs, none as perfectly formulated as might be hoped, but the discussion has long since run its course. We're here now since it's ready for a close. I can't do it myself since I !voted in one of the earlier discussions, but please, take the hint. We would not be coming here if there were not a reasonably clear consensus that has emerged and just needs an authoritative stamp from someone uninvolved. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 11:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

  Then by all means, keeping having discussion after discussion and dragging it to AN. That is obviously a better solution, right? It is much easier for an admin to enforce the outcome of a real RFC. Disagree all you want, but it rather speaks for itself, that for contentious issues that rise to this level, a real RFC that is properly crafted is what you want. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No she is not right. Discussions do not need to follow a formal RfC process. Unstructured discussions very much benefit from being closed by uninvolved editors. I'm not sure what "global consensus" has to do with a specific content proposal for the lead a specific article. - MrX 🖋 00:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Softlavender is absolutely incorrect that the matter must wait until the RfC has run for at least a month. If RfCs usually run for 30 days, it's because (1) many editors misinterpret the time of automatic de-listing as a recommended duration, and (2) most of those who don't would rather let it run for the full 30 than press the point. There is certainly nothing in written guidance supporting a 30-day rule-of-thumb, and RfCs may close in a few days or a few months depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, per WP:RFCEND, RfCs require a close no more than any discussion does. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• I requested the presently active Talk:Donald_Trump#RfC:_A_statement_on_Trump_and_Covid-19_in_the_lead 12 days ago. Perhaps redundant with the previous extensive discussions, but I thought it worthwhile to have a specific, formal RfC on the consensus text, given the way the process seems to have been manipulated for delay. There has not been really any opposition to the proposal, other than the universal recommendation to drop my ill-advised "weasel" words, in what I thought would be a compromise to soften the language. The RfC consensus so far has been overwhelming, other than those comments that deviate from the process (mistakenly seeing the RfC as a reopening of the issue, not following directions, etc.). So overwhelming that it seemed to me we could close the RfC by mutual agreement, as is possible according to the rules (though there have been no takers for that avenue). Something is broken/being exploited by Wikipedia processes if it takes 5 months to devise a simple sentence for the lead. I've thought about bringing the issue here already, so I support this attention. There is WP:NOW: "...when an article lacks vital content, that content should be added as quickly as possible." The text in question concerns Donald Trump and his response to pandemic...speaking of vital content. Across all the political articles, I believe this problem is likely universal just now - it is a political strategy to jam up the process. Some broader, objective strategy to prevent discussions such as this from going on endlessly (or until after the election...) is likely in order. Bdushaw (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

We had a perfectly good approximation of the consensus that was repeatedly removed and disparaged in obstinate obstructive edits by a small number of editors. The consensus was accurately reflected thanks to the work of @MrX, Neutrality, and Starship.paint: and others. It just needs to go back in the article with a warning to others to use the talk page to promote and gather consensus for any improved version. WP is not a beaurocracy. One of the obstructive editors has already been TBANned. If anyone takes on the task of compiling the evidence, we have other TBAN candidates as well. There has been consensus for something in the lead for several months. Insistent quibbling about the perfect language, with excessive numbers of proposals, alternatives, and bludgeons mostly ignoring cited RS references, serves only to enable a claim of "no consensus". That is the stuff of bans. If any Admin chooses to review the entire history of this discussion, we'd see several warnings at the very least. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No reason to close no-RFC discussion Unless the discussion has turned disruptive there is no reason to close, presumably with a summary, a non-RfC discussion. This can actually be problematic if the closing gives the appearance of an actual RfC that got wider community input vs a discussion among the article locals only. If the discussion is done let it auto archive. Springee (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Of course there's a reason. Numerous editors have spent considerable time availing themselves of the dispute resolution process and you think they should be left hanging? This is exactly the type of bureaucratic thinking that contributes to battleground editing. It's truly unhelpful. - MrX 🖋 17:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the discussion should be closed only (gray box, no further comments) or that an uninvolved editor should try to summarize the discussion as would be done with a RfC closing? If the former, why? If the latter then what authority does that discussion have beyond current, local consensus? What would stop someone from starting a RfC to discuss the same issue the day after this closing? As the discussion (presumably) didn't request wider input, as Dennis Brown mentioned, it would only represent a consensus of the current, local editors. A RfC, drawing in uninvolved editors would almost certainly superseded the local discussion and wouldn't be forum shopping. Again, what is to be gained by closing a local discussion that isn't a RfC? Springee (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

But there is an RfC, as noted above, so this discussion just above seems academic. When I requested the RfC, I cast a wide net for comments, pinging BIO, SCI, and POL. There have been no serious additional comments for about 10 days now. Those that vigorously objected to the inclusion of the sentence in question when it was attempted to be added to the lead have not voiced those opinions in the RfC, that I can tell. Bdushaw (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

That is unfortunate. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been involved with an article level discussion that becomes locked. Someone starts a RfC and after that we get more participants. When the RfC gets more participation than the original discussion that's great. We know the RfC can be the definitive consensus (or non-consensus). I'm not sure how you should handle it if the RfC gets less activity than the previous discussion. If the RfC doesn't get much response then I guess the local participants will need to decide if a consensus has been reached and move from there. Either way, I don't think non-RfC discussions should ever be closed as if they were a RfC. Springee (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is unfortunate - it is just a symptom of the weirdness of editing patterns on this particular article, and one of the reasons for requesting a bit of intervention. Bdushaw (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Springee, that is pretty much outside WP process. There are many ways to establish consensus on article content. In this case, there was disruptive abuse of the RfC format, evidenced by what in my experience was an unprecedented number of "Abort" !votes. A review and affirmation of the evident consensus, as reflected in MrX's edit that kept being reverted, was a reasonable way to move forward. The alternative would have been a lengthy AE tangle. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That is one of the reasons why I often suggest trying to get agreement on the RfC question before the discussion starts. While editors don't agree on the content, it's often easier to get to an agreement on the question. I'm not sure which part you mean is outside of WP process. It's very common for a local consensus to be superseded by a RfC consensus. In most cases this is obvious as the RfC includes the original locals + outside editors. I don't recall the last time I saw one where the "local" discussion had editor participation than the RfC. I guess that would be a case where you could argue that the two discussions could be considered "merged" and try to establish consensus that way. Regardless, I don't think the local, non-RfC discussion should be closed vs just allowed to archive after a period of inactivity. Springee (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't appear to be familiar with the history of this particular issue on that page. The first RfC posted was a mess with 5 options, concocted seemingly at random by the poster. It was the opposite of good process or even constructive collaboration. OP refused to clean up the RfC. It kept the content at bay for a long time, only to be followed by more delays and distractions even after broad talk page participation crafted what's turned out to be highly stable article text. There should not need to be a close, but it's the least severe way of stopping the small number of editors who are edit-warring consensus content out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 16:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm deliberately not following anything on a Trump article. It sounds like the RfC were bad which makes this a mottled mess. Springee (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes that is what happened. And to be blunt about it the RfC format was abused. And the substantive consensus was reaffirmed in a lenthy reexamination of the issues facilitated in part by @Awilley:, whose format we followed in verifying that the text was indeed consensus. It can still be placed in the lead at any time, and I'd be curious to see which editor is going to revert it this time. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I was suggesting that Wikipedia content disputes are not resolved by pedantry. I hope that's clear enough. - MrX 🖋 13:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll do it! Whose edit am I reverting? Lev!vich 18:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I've had my eye on this for a while, and I think we've lost sight of a couple of points.

• There is clear consensus that something about covid should be in the lead. It's just unclear exactly what that something should be. There's still a partisan divide, as there always is on that page, but in this case the usual "swing voters" unanimously favor having something, and even a couple regulars who have opposed all of the proposed wordings concede that there should be something.
• Consensus is best achieved by a combination of editing and discussion. Wikipedia wasn't meant to be written by committee votes. One reason these discussions are so messy is that it requires a new vote every time someone has a new idea or incremental improvement to the proposed wording. Once people get past the point of wholesale reverting the sentence in and out of the article they can settle in and start tweaking the sentence to resolve objections until it stabilizes into something that's good enough. The talk page is there to aid that tweaking process, not replace it.

If I hadn't played a role in formatting the discussion in the "finding common ground" section I would quite comfortable closing the RFC finding a positive consensus for Q1 and suggesting that people continue working on hammering out wording nuances using the article and talk page. As it is I'd prefer someone else do it, but if nobody steps up I'm willing to take a stab at cutting through some of this bureaucratic gridlock. ~Awilley (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

More edit battles today on this issue, as people have their patience worn thin waiting...another urgent plea to bring to a close the several open discussions on adding this sentence to the lead. "Help me Obiwan Kenobe! You are my only hope!" Bdushaw (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. [1] ~Awilley (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

ECP on The Bourne Supremacy (film)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Athaenara has placed The Bourne Supremacy (film) under ECP, citing "Persistent disruptive editing: Special:Contributions/El_Junglas and assorted anons have been repeatedly targeting one word for, I suppose, amusement" until 26th August.

I believe this to be a poor use of ECP, for the following reasons:

• It doesn't seem to meet any criteria under Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Extended_confirmed_protection or Wikipedia:Rough guide to extended confirmed protection
• It is debateable whether Athaenara's version is correct in the first place - the quote being "Get some rest, Pam. You look tired" or Athaenara's Mondegreen version of "Get some rest, babe. You look tired." Scripts and subtitles support "Pam", not "babe". Also, as I point out on the talk page, "babe" is not within Bourne's character, but I accept that's pretty much OR.
• There was not "Persistent disruptive editing":
  • Athaenara made the change from "Pam" to "babe" and was reverted by an IP address here.
  • Athaenara reinstated their change to be reverted by another editor here
  • Athaenara reinstated their version again only for it to be reverted by yet another - different - editor here.
• Athaenara then protected the page here and once again inserted their version directly after here.
• The only "persistent ... editing" is from Athaenara. Fair point that the other editors didn't use edit summaries, but Athaenara should have started talk page discussion before ECP.

After an IP editor brought this up on the talk page, I agreed and reverted back to the "Pam" version. At this point Athaenara joined in the discussion - but not before.

I have asked Athaenara on their talk page to lift protection, but have not had any response - although they have since edited their talk page to reply to another topic, so despite minimal edits, they are present on the project.

In the absence of input from Athaenara, I'm asking if an uninvolved admin could look at the page and decide if this was an appropriate use of protection. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Not an admin, but since the IP edits weren't vandalism or disruptive, but a content dispute, and since the admin was involved in the content dispute, this seems like a clear misuse of admin tools and ECP. Doubly a misuse since their article talkpage contribution confirms they can't find any RS to back up an edit that disputes what the script and subtitles indicate, as well as what most viewers hear (myself included, having just popped it in to check). Plus, ten days? Actual, real disruptive editing reported at RFPP often results in ECP that lasts only a couple of days. Grandpallama (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Grandpallama. Admin makes bold edit, reverted by IP, admin reinstates bold edit, reverted by non-EC editor, admin reinstates bold edit again, reverted by another IP, admin protects the page: this is not permitted according to WP:INVOLVED. Additionally, ignoring the talk page message is not permitted by WP:ADMINACCT. I don't know if the admin's edit is correct or not, but that's irrelevant. Lev!vich 18:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't look like an appropriate use of protection. There are situations in which it's OK to protect a page after reverting but supporting your own version in a content dispute isn't one of them. In addition I've seen the film a number of times and I'm fairly sure it's "Pam". Hut 8.5 20:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with the above and have removed the protection. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have my own position on this and have expressed it clearly. I have no quarrel with any of those involved in the discussion here and no inclination to engage in arguments about it. – Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see where you've addressed why you think your edit is correct. I do not see that here, at the article talkpage, or on your own talkpage where you were directly asked, that you have addressed why you thought ECP was an appropriate step despite being involved. Levivich mentioned ADMINACCT already, and I'm inclined to think you should offer an explanation in lieu of editors demanding one. Grandpallama (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Agree. The content issue is moot; Athaenara needs to acknowledge the admin action was inappropriate and INVOLVED, or provide acceptable justification. Then this can be resolved. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens, Grandpallama, Levivich, Hut 8.5, Wugapodes, and Bison X: Page protection isn't my usual wheelhouse. My intention was to protect the page from unregistered anon account editing for what I considered a brief time period (10 days). The main thing I've gathered from the discussion here is that a 1 or 2 day protection which didn't require extended confirmed status would have been considered more appropriate. The ad hoc rituals on dramaboards are not my usual wheelhouse, either. – Athaenara ✉ 21:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Athaenara, I think the point was that you were involved in a content dispute and used your admin tools to "win", not the length of the page protection. Schazjmd (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I just thought the page needed temporary protection from editing by anons, I wasn't trying to "win" anything. – Athaenara ✉ 21:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I see where there was some other IP edits, so I can see why you would protect without checking out this IP edit, so INVOLVED may not really be intentional. But I think what got you here was not responding for 3 days to a request on your talk page to lift protection. Did you see the inquiry on your talk page? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Athaenara had never edited this page previously, and all of their participation was to edit war back in their erroneous content, so the most likely explanation is that they returned because they got a notice they'd been reverted, not because they were watching the page (or had been alerted to do so) for disruptive editing. The only IP participation was to attempt to correct Athaenara's edit. Unless there were egregious BLP violations, no uninvolved admin would agree to ECP on a page because of two IP edits from two different IP editors when one registered editor agreeing with them; I find it difficult to see this as anything other than a textbook example of involvement, and a textbook example of using admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. The response here that ad hoc rituals on dramaboards are not my usual wheelhouse largely dismisses the concerns that have been raised; admin accountability is a core expectation for any admin. I don't seen any acknowledgment of problematic behavior here. The fact that Athaenara has instead again portrayed their actions as simple temporary protection from editing by anons still sidesteps the central issue that said protection was of their preferred version in a content dispute. Grandpallama (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vladimir Vladimirov (politician)

To whom it may concern, the page I was trying to create on Wikipedia, based on Vladimir Vladimirov, the governor of Stavropol Krai, has been restricted to administrators at this time. Can I ask you to unlock the access of creation as I am willing to translate the article from Russian to English. Anything would be much appreciated. If you have any concerns, please leave a reply on my talk page. Thanks. Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ivan Milenin, I see no indication that the page you mention (linked in the header) is create-protected. Primefac (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

You may not see it this way, but as I am trying to do that, I am unable to create the page. Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, it's an edit filter rather than a SALT. I've created Draft:Vladimir Vladimirov (politician) for you to work on the page. Primefac (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a consensus here?

This RfC has been going on for 9 days, and it followed a discussion that went on for 12 days. Many editors have commented and many edits to the disputed part were made. Just when it seemed we can see a consensus at the end, I was informed that there is no consensus there.

I have three questions:

• Is there a consensus there?
• (if yes) How can the consensus be apparent beyond doubt?
• (if no) How can consensus be achieved here?

Thanks. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 01:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC's usually run for 30 days barring WP:SNOW which doesn't seem to apply here. Why do you think this one should be closed after only 9? Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case there is no reason to be worried. 30 days is cool.

Any advice on consensus? Because it's not the RfC that worries me, it is the consensus or lack of it. One way I can figure is to wait the RfC out and at the end of 30 days (if the consensus is still not apparent) take the dispute to some mediation mechanism. Did I figure that right? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Let it run 30 days, let the closer worry about the consensus at that time. A lot can happen in the 21 days remaining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and vandalism at 2020 China–India skirmishes needs admin attention

There's a silly amount of edit-warring, probable sockpuppetry, and offensive vandalism at 2020 China–India skirmishes. The WP:RFPP request has been sitting idle for some time while new accounts are joining the fray. Could an admin please look at that ASAP? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Article semi-protected for three months and sock blocked. Mz7 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks! For what it’s worth, there were other SPAs that joined in the edit war: Rathin.99 and Karnarcher1989. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Ah, I see. For those accounts, I think because they aren't autoconfirmed yet, I don't think we need to take the time to start an SPI or block them now that the semi-protection is in place. Maybe warn them if they continue disruptively editing, though with any luck they'll just stop editing (or better yet turn into constructive editors...). I'll also note that the 2020 China–India skirmishes article falls under WP:ACDS, so if edit warring becomes a persistent problem, we could consider implementing some kind of WP:1RR restriction on the article on top of the semi-protection, or something like that. Mz7 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: These new accounts were created to continue the month-long edit warring (cf. this vs this and this in July; this vs this today) against YuukiHirohiko and their now-blocked sock Bobcat1997. Since it's been such a long-term problem involving auto-confirmed and extended confirmed accounts, my thoughts were that it warrants a CU check for the sockmaster(s) as preventative against gaming the system. I'll defer to your judgment though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: Just now, a person who reactivated his 20 edits account just for edit warring on this page is continuing the edit war.[2] Given this disruption, I don't think that there has been any evidence of edit warring between ECP users since last 2 months. It would be best if you just ECP it for at least 3 - 6 months and see how it goes. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel,  Done Mz7 (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Rebecca Heineman

• Rebecca Heineman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have applied 3 months' ECP as GamerGate arbitration enforcement on this due to persistent deadnaming. I am reasonably confident that protection is the right choice, but welcome review of the level and duration, and whether this is the right case. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I now had a look. The Gamergate arbitration enforcement clearly applies (I would have chosen BLP myself, but this is not so important). I do not have issues with your chosen duration of the protection, it is clear that the disruption at some level is happening already much longer. However, I do not quite understand the protection level you have chosen. After this edit in June (which prompted the talk page discussion, resulting in a kind of compromise) I do not see a single bad edit by a confirmed user. There were some edits of user Indrian, which were not particularly great, but my understanding is that they accepted the talk page compromise and followed it, and, in any case, they are extended confirmed. The only recent edit by a non-extended-confirmed (but confirmed) user goes in the same direction and must be classified as good. My conclusion is that recent disruption in the article has been caused by IPs. My choice would be semi-protection, and possibly for a longer duration (6 months or a year). I am not going to modify the protection myself, but I have reviewed the situation and provided my opinion as an uninvolved administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, thank you for that, I will reduce to SPROT. I greatly appreciate the effort you put in there. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, she was just featured in the Netflix series High Score that premiered on Aug 19 (hence the new attention) and though I'd have to go and look, I know "Becky Heineman") was named in it, and her story there includes her trans nature, I am pretty sure it didn't mention her birth name. The nicknames that were removed are actually well sourced and not deadnames, its the birthname that is and the protection seems right. --Masem (t) 13:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I actually do not understand what the problem is. I mean, the birth name is present in the infobox, but can't appear in the lead? Is that the consensus this measure is meant to uphold? Salvio 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano, I missed it being added there. Fixed. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I think ECP needs to be elevated. People are still deadnaming her, I just reverted someone on the page. Valeince (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Masem -- just wanted to chime in with the fact that the High Score series (which I am quite enjoying) does in fact mention her birth name and has a brief interview with her as a young person under that name. I suspect that confluence of factors is driving a lot of this. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I missed that (I was watching and trying to document the names in real time to add to episode summaries there so...) So yea, that would self-identification along with other sources that exist so yeah, it's not really a deadname, BUT given the trans nature aspects , GG DS makes sense. --Masem (t) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• User:Indrian has reverted the deadname back in four times today. I have just warned them, though I'm not going to take any admin action as I'm about to go out and don't like to block and run. Black Kite (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm also wary of fully protecting whilst it's in a version that may have BLP concerns. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• If you look at the talk page, Valeince chose to drop their objection and leave the conversation. At that point I largely returned things to where they stood before they got involved. The article has returned to status quo in the body and had a slight change in the infobox to address a concern voiced in talk. The article is currently in line with consensus on the talk page (as voiced by five editors in two discussions two months apart) and appears to be stable at the moment. I fail to see the problem here, as the last edit was not part of any war, but just getting us back to where we were before an anon started disrupting the article last night.Indrian (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• And there are no BLP violations. BLP covers two situations: poorly sourced controversial material and addition of private information not found in secondary sources. The name and her transition are both well documented in sources, and her deadname is also common knowledge and referenced in numerous secondary sources. If I am missing a BLP area, feel free to enlighten me, but the consensus in talk currently is that we do not have a BLP issue. Indrian (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Finally, for those that don't know, there was a consensus reached on how to handle the name two months ago. It was a contentious discussion, and I fully own up to my part in that, but we ended with a good balance of accuracy, clarity, and respect to the subject. In the last day or so, an anon tried to change the article in a way that went against this consensus. That resulted in the whole thing getting dredged up again. In the last 24 hours, consensus on using the name has strengthened (by which I mean more new participants to the conversation agreed the name should be in the article than people who were opposed) and the one major opponent chose to let it be despite their reservations. I personally don't feel admin action should be undoing that compromise unless consensus shifts. Indrian (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because I was mentioned here, I still don't have any plans to wade back into an edit war, I will comment to why I left and what my objections are: I left because I was editing with emotion, which isn't helpful in situations like this, not because I agree with anything said in the discussion. I still think this is a BLP issue because I don't believe that you can just go by one documentary to start dead naming someone; I think the individual trans person should explicitly be mentioned in multiple RSs that make it clear they're okay with being mentioned by their old name. I don't see any of that here and still oppose any effort to do so under other circumstances. We should take the BLP's wishes into consideration, and that should be it. Valeince (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not the place to go over all of this -- obviously its better suited to the article talk page -- but I just wanted to inform you because this is the first time this point has come up that its not just one source, that's just the most recent. Here is an interview in which her full original name appears. Here is a video interview that includes footage of one of her games with the credits clearly visible with the original name. Here is another interview with a picture of an article with the original name. I am sure she does not utter it anymore, and I understand why, but she has not insisted that anyone who interviews her pretend it did not exist or that she was not famous (in video game circles) under it. It really is a commonly known and referenced name, hence the lack of a BLP issue. Indrian (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

After rushing in inappropriately (mea culpa) I have come around to Indrian's point of view. The former name does have to be included, I think (she was notable then too) and it doesn't seem like any sort of secret. Still, as discussed on the talk page, I think we can minimize its use. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, currently it is only in once, which satisfies current consensus as hashed out on the talk page. A second reference in the infobox was actually not accurate, and I removed it after a concern was raised that led me to research the nickname deeper (she was always just Burger, never Burger Bill or Burger Becky). This has always been about accuracy and completeness, not some agenda to shame, humiliate, or cast aspersions on her lifestyle or character. Indrian (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't know if this is the right place to ask. There are currently 60 categories in Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit which have been emptied and can be speedy deleted as per WP:G6 as "Deleting empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past". There is no point in me individually tagging 60 categories. I would appreciate if an admin could delete them. Thanks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Salvio 15:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Review of El C's block of Koavf

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On 14 August 2020, El C blocked Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with an expiration time of 1 month for a WP:3RR violation. See discussion at User talk:Koavf#August_2020 (permalink)

Today I asked[3] El C to review the block, but they declined to lift it.[4] So I bring it here for review.

There is no disagreement about the fact that Koavf did violate 3RR. This followed an earlier 2-week block of Koavf in July, also by El C.

However, the blocking admin appears to have taken inadequate account of the also-undisputed facts that:

1. This happened Koavf was actively creating the new article Show Pony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which he had tagged from the first edit with {{In use}}
2. The other editor Gagaluv1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly ignored the inuse tag, and proceeded to make changes e.g. to the style of referencing while the article was actively being built
3. This caused edit conflicts and disrupted the article's creation
4. Koavf correctly responded by starting a discussion at User talk:Gagaluv1#Please_stop (permalink) ... but Gagaluv1 did not stop.
5. As Koavf continued to edit the article, he reverted the edits by Gagaluv1, so that he could continue to develop his text.

So far as I can see, there is no suggestion that Koavf's edits violated any content policy. However, Gagaluv added unsourced info, and changed the citation style[5] contrary to WP:CITEVAR. Both of those are bad conduct at any time, but they are particularly inappropriate when they disrupting the creation of a new article.

In other words, Gagaluv1 was being a pain, and deserved a WP:TROUT.

However, instead of telling Gagaluv1 to back off and hang on, EL C blocked both editors. This was Gagaluv1's first block, so it was set at 24 hours ... but because Koavf had been blocked before, El C blocked Koavf for 1 month.

This is perverse. I can see how a simple application of the bright-line principle leads to blocks of both editors ... but that simple application has ignored the fact that Koavf was creating content while Gagaluv1 was breaching content policy and disrupting article creation.

The result is that the content creator (Koavf) has been blocked for 31 times as long as the disruptor. This is perverse: any disparity should be the other way around. And the unintended consequence of this block is to create a much greater hazard for a prolific content creator like Koavf than for a disruptor. That's a very bad way to treat content creators.

I hope that in future, Koavf will create any new articles initially in their own userspace, so that their draft can be free from the sort of disruption which Gagaluv1 engaged in. But they shouldn't still be blocked for having been goaded into a 3RR vio as a side effect of actively creating an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Good post. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Third-party block appeals are inadmissible and should be speedily closed.. Only the blocked editor may appeal their block. Sandstein 19:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Sandstein: I don't see anything to that effect at WP:Blocking policy#Unblock_requests. What have I missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's in WP:UNBLOCK, but that's only a guideline. However I think this is OK. The OP isn't disputing the block per se, but is querying a disparity between the lengths of the blocks given how the incident unfolded. Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Black Kite, thanks for the link, but a third-party appeal of the length of the block is still a third-party appeal and therefore disallowed. Sandstein 20:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl, our policy correctly implies that an unblock request must be made by the blocked user. The first sentence of WP:BP#Unblocking reads "Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block", and the rest of the section goes on to discuss unblock requests in this context. There are at least two good reasons for this: (1) if the blocked user does not appeal the block, there is no dispute that needs resolution and a third-party appeal wastes the community's time; and (2) the possibility of a reformatio in peius or, in our parlance, a boomerang: in reviewing an unblock request, the community may well conclude that a longer block or ban is warranted, and it would be unfair to make a user subject to this risk unless they themselves request community scrutiny of their position. Sandstein 20:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, an implication isn't enough. If you wish to shut down a well-formatted, well-reasoned, good faith request on the basis of a technicality, you need to give us an ironclad policy quote. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Sandstein: if there is a consensus to disallow third-party appeals, then the policy should say so explicitly ... but it doesn't say that. If you want to ban them, then WP:RFC is thataway.

  I also strongly disagree with the assertion that if the blocked user does not appeal the block, there is no dispute that needs resolution. A block is not just a personal dispute between two editors, and should not be treated as such. A block is applied on behalf of the community, and should always be open to review by the community. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  I'm afraid this is another example of where Sandstein is unable to gauge the community and simplistically parses policy without applying context, nuance or IAR. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  BrownHairedGirl and Lepricavark, as noted above, the prohibition of third-party appeals is part of a guideline, WP:UNBLOCK#Appeals by third party. It is binding community consensus. This third-party appeal is invalid and disruptive. The rules apply to all, including the popular and well-connected. Sandstein 08:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  That particular guideline seems to have been added unilaterally with an edit summary that invites any dissenting editor to "feel free to revert." So much for that "binding community consensus." Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I don't have any opinion about the block itself, but I disagree with the suggestion that third parties can't object to blocks. I've had my wrist slapped once or twice for making bad blocks, and upon further consideration, I've reversed them. It's all part of WP:ADMINACCT. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  RoySmith, our guideline mentioned above prohibiting third-party appeals doesn't prevent an editor suggesting to an administrator that they should reconsider a block. That can be helpful, as you write. But it does prevent third parties from requesting review of a block by another admin or the community, as has happened here. An additional reason for this is that in most cases we ask blocked editors to convince us that they understand the reason for the block and that they won't do whatever got them blocked again, see WP:GAB. That is not possible if a third party makes the unblock request. Sandstein 12:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but three 3RR violations in about a month or so — there has to be some consequences to that. El_C 20:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I can accept the view that there should be some consequences. But the reason I am raising this is that the content creator got a punishment 31 times as harsh that meted out to the disruptor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Am I understanding correctly that content creators are exempt from consequence and should edit war freely even after multiple edit warring warnings and short blocks? Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, Praxidicae. My view is that a content creator should not be punished more severely than an editor sets out to disrupt content creation by ignoring an inuse tag and violating content policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Patently absurd non sequitur. What a joke. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The first 3RR block was for one week (partial). The second 3RR block was for 2 weeks (sitewide) — unblocked early. And this third 3RR block was for one month. The first offense 3RR violation on the part of the other party in this third 3RR round was for 24 hours, as is customary for users with a clean block log. Again, all of this within the span of about a month or so. El_C 20:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable! Has the blocked editor asked for a review of the block? If not, why is an uninvolved third party asking for a review? It seems like the block decision was justified! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have previously issued blocks of differing lengths for parties in a dispute where both violated 3RR where one party has only recently been blocked for the same offence. If an editor repeatedly violates 3RR in a short time period, they should not be surprised that the length of their block escalates, and doubling each time is not unreasonable IMO. However, I do agree that the disparity in length is quite a large one – probably an unfortunate consequence of Koavf's next block being due to be a month based on the doubling principle. I'm not really sure what could be done though – it would not seem right to give Koavf a shorter block given his recent 3RR violations, and a week-long block for a first offence also seems harsh... Number 57 20:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock with time served. Koavf certainly could have handled this better, but I fail to see how it benefits the encyclopedia for us to lose one of our most productive editors for a month because they got carried away reverting problematic edits. This is the problem with rigidly adhering to the model of using escalating blocks. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Of the last four four blocks (all for edit warring), that would make it the third early unblock. El_C 21:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ... which is a good indicator that there is a recurring problem with the way this is handled. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. The last unblocking admin said they would have indffed rather than impose a 2-week block, but I felt (and still do) that that would have been too harsh. El_C 21:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• That's true. But what if Koavf were willing to make a commitment to work on future article drafts in userspace in order to avoid this issue in the future? I don't deny that Koavf's behavior was problematic, but under the circumstances it's hard for me to accept that Koavf deserves to be blocked for a full month. You can still see a thread further up this page in which I protested over having been subjected to treatment that was far worse than Koavf's edit-warring. Barely anyone even acknowledged it. I've grown accustomed to being personally attacked and then having my complaints dismissed or ignored, yet Koavf has to lose a month for edit-warring in spite of the mitigating circumstances. I know that consistency is an unrealistic goal, but sometimes it's hard to accept the disparities. I understand why you initially opted to block for a month, but at this point I believe that Koavf has either learned his lessor or he hasn't. Three more weeks won't make the difference in that regard. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock with time served - In this specific case I don't think Justin is to blame here - Sure he did edit war however the emitting factor here is that he added an inuse tag to the article way before the edit war began therefore indicating he's busy with the article and that no one should edit it until he's done, Gaga ignored that repeatedly so IMHO Gaga is to blame here not Justin. Also Justin went to the talkpage after in the hope of getting Gaga to stop.

Ofcourse if this was a simple edit war then sure a block would be warranted but as I said given the inuse tag etc I can't fault Justin for reverting. –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block and unblock - not time served, not because the length is too long (though it was), but the block should be overturned on its merits because Koavf should not have been blocked for this 3RR violation in the first place. Koavf created Show Pony Aug 14 at 14:45 with the {{in use}} tag on it (Special:Permalink/972932978), and then he made a continuous series of edits, up to 15:21 (Special:Diff/972938290). Gagaluv1 made a major edit through the tag at 15:22 (Special:Diff/972938474)... that's just one minute after Koavf's most-recent edit, while the in use tag is on there, and less than 40 minutes after the article was created. And then when Koavf reverted, Gagaluv1 reinstated their edits multiple times. That's bullshit. Editing an article while someone is creating it is really, really poor conduct, almost harassment in my view. We don't need a policy that says, "when an editor creates a new article with the in use tag, don't mess with it while they're actively editing it". This is such a clear example of Koavf being in the right and Gagaluv1 being in the wrong, that I really can't believe anyone can fail to see how egregiously one-sided this particular edit war was. If anything, Gagaluv should have been blocked for a month, and Koavf should have been given some wikilove for putting up with this. Bottom line: unblock him and let him go back to creating articles, which is what he was doing when he was so rudely interrupted by Gagaluv and, sorry to say, followed by C. Lev!vich 23:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, @Levivich. You get to the heart of the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with that analysis. Once an article goes live, it may be edited. Otherwise, there is the WP:DRAFT space. Editing while an in-use tag is displayed may be discourteous, but it is not an exemption from 3RR. Bottom line: I'm not sure that Koavf is able to observe 3RR, which is what the last three 3RR violations (all taking place within the span of a month or so) demonstrate to me. El_C 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

This is where I fundamentally disagree with El C, who appears to pay no attention at all to the fact that Gagaluv1 was trampling all over WP:CITEVAR, and thereby disrupting the creation of the article.

El C seems to me to be take a most unhelpfully binary stance on the fact that policy does not explicitly ban editing a page which is tagged with {{in use}}, and thereby discounting it entirely. I really cannot see how the goal of developing content is well-served by El C's discounting of the way that Gagaluv1's persistent violations of WP:CITEVAR disrupted Koavf's creation of content. The effect of El C's approach is to license the sort of disruption that Gagaluv1 engaged in. How does that help the 'pedia? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd characterize a single edit as a persistent violation of WP:CITEVAR. The first edit, yes, but not the subsequent edits, in which he made use of the list-defined references. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not so, Mackensen. There were actually two edits by Gagaluv1 which changed the citatiosn style:

1. 15:22[6]
2. 15:39 [7]

The latter came after the second of Koavf's two requests to Gagaluv1 to stop changing the citation style:

• 15:29[8]
• 15:37[9], explicitly invoking WP:CITEVAR

That's persistent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I think of {in use} on a freshly created page as sacrosanct. Having someone edit a page you just created while you're still actively editing it with the {in use} tag is like writing in a notebook and having somebody walk up to you and rip the notebook out of your hands and start making changes to what you've written.

Also, I think there's a difference between preventing disruption and enforcing rules. Who was Koavf disrupting? I'd say no one other than a disruptive editor whose disruptive edits Koavf was reverting. It makes all the difference to me that this was a brand new article still actively in the creation process. (By the way, how did the other editor even find this new creation?) Lev!vich 00:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree on its face a one-month block is harsh, but let's poke at this a little. I think the matter of the {{inuse}} tag is something of a red herring. It's neither magic nor a policy exemption. It's typically a warning to other editors that a major refactoring is taking place, so please don't come in and make trivial edits because they'll just get overwritten anyway. I can't say I've seen it used for a new article, especially not for a new article on a recent subject where you might reasonably expect to see other editors making contributions. It's unwiki-like to use it that way. There are plenty of ways to drop a fully-formed article into the article space before others can edit it. The preview button, for example. Draft space. Your sandbox. Justin's been around and he knows all this. Edit-warring with another contributor, making good-faith edits, isn't the way to go about this. He knows that, or he should know that. Coming so recently off another edit-warring block suggests that he hasn't taken this to heart. It's a tough call, but I think El_C is correct, and I think the block should stand. Blocks aren't punitive, after all, they're preventative. In this case, preventing future edit warring by making it clear what the community's expectations are. Mackensen (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  (This is a general thought, and I haven't reviewed anything in this particular case). Two partially contrasting philosophies clash now and again here. One is to block indefinitely, expecting the blocked editor to say "OK, I won't do X anymore" and then get unblocked (and probably re-blocked if they repeat X). Another is to perform escalating blocks, basically saying, if you continue doing X, you will be blocked for increasing lengths of time. As a non-admin and mere observer, I sometimes wish WP made up its mind which notion should prevail, or in which specific cases which of these 'policies' apply. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) I disagree with Mackensen's description of Gagaluv1's edits as good faith.

Koavf twice asked Gagaluv1 to stop changing the citation style

• 15:29[10]
• 15:37[11], explicitky invoking WP:CITEVAR

Despite that, Gagaluv1 proceeded to chnage the citation style again:

1. 15:39 [12]

Where's the good faith in that?

And where is the good faith in Gagaluv1's decision to ignore Koavf's request [13] to wait 45 minutes? What was the huge urgency which justified Gagaluv1's determiatinto isert hemselves into the middle of another editor's conent creation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I'm sorry, I missed the first edit. Anyway, yes, two minutes after the invocation of CITEVAR he makes a second edit. Did he see the edit invoking CITEVAR before saving his edit? No idea, but that's a short window. I think it's entirely plausible he saved his edit and went to go see why he had more notifications. Yes, I say he was editing in good faith. He said he was changing the citation style to one that editors were familiar with. That's a reasonable thing to say, especially if you've never gotten reverted over citation styles. That he respected the citation style afterwards suggests good faith to me. As far as "insert[ing] themselves into the middle of the another editor's content creation", this is a wiki for heaven's sake. That's what we do around here. Mackensen (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have never liked escalating blocks, but I don't know if we have better options. We have dealt with edit warriors before (sorry Justin, but that's where you are at now), and one option is to put editors on a 1R restriction, or even a 0R. That might work here. Justin asked on his talk page, "what was I supposed to do here?" and I don't know. More better edit summaries, maybe, and warning the other editor. Then again, the other editor got off lightly with their one-day block--when edit summaries such as the one here contain a pretty revolting kind of passive-aggressive goading. I see now that I have warned that editor before, and they responded in a pretty similar manner, and I wasn't the first or the last one to have a problem with them; Justin's post/thread on that talk page is about as much as you can expect from an editor. So I don't have a solution ready here (I see the problem with an early unblock), but I also think that Gagaluv has been getting away with it for quite a while. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. Under the circumstances, I probably would not have blocked at all, and in any event the one-month block length is manifestly unreasonable. I am aware that Koavf has far from an unblemished record (to a degree that if anything is understated in this thread)—but that doesn't change the fact that in this specific instance his edits, while not by-the-book, were understandable. Regarding the procedural concern that the blocked user himself hasn't filed this appeal, I think it's obvious from the prior discussion on his talkpage that he would like to see this block shortened; but if anyone thinks the lack of a formal block appeal from Koavf is a serious impediment to resolving this, then Koavf should be advised to file one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Incidentally, since the edits by Gagaluv1 are being extensively discussed, I've notified him of the thread. I know he was pinged near the beginning, but the discussion has moved on from there and I thought he should be aware. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Look, for what it's worth, I like Justin —we have corresponded privately in the past on several occasions, so I trust him enough with my email address, which can be said about few editors— so blocking him again did pain me. But, him continuing to violate 3RR, three times, almost week after week, was not something I felt merited an exemption in this instance, even with all the extenuating circumstances taken into account. El_C 00:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• And I don't know Koavf at all, except from the noticeboards. I understand your position but I can't agree that the 3RR violation in this particular instance is typical of the genre; as I said, I think the edits were completely understandable in context, and I think the block length here is unconscionable. If this had been an ordinary appeal on the blocked user's talkpage and I were working a shift as the unblock-reviewing admin, I might well have just reversed it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Which would be your prerogative. But the context and totality of 3RR being violated so many times during such a brief duration is a problem, I challenge. El_C 00:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I do not believe we should entertain third party appeals, but since we're here I'll give my perspective. It seems everyone agrees Koavf violated the 3RR. While there may be mitigating circumstances, violating 3RR is blockworthy on its face and El_C explained how the block length was determined by a pretty common rule of thumb. Nothing here seems to suggest the block is in violation of policy which is the only reason I think we should consider third party appeals. If Koavf believes the block was unfair or no longer serves a preventative purpose, they may say so themselves, but I don't think that's something we should figure out absent their input. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Just read Brad's comment about koavf's talk page discussion which I hadn't seen. If Koavf is fine with this proceeding then what I said is moot. I'm pretty neutral on the merits of the actual question. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Unblock I think we're seeing a significant amount of bureaucracy here, especially from certain admins who are detached from community norms. Suggest that (a) Koavf is unblocked and (b) Sandstein is provided with some training to help them understand better this situation and it context, along with Wikipedia guidelines and Wikipedia policies. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. FWIW, the ‘In Use’ template is not a magic wand, especially with newer users. Koavf may be learning the hard way that they should develop articles in their user space, then launch them to avoid this happening in the future. Sometimes we run into others whose editing style is sharply varied from our own but in article space they are allowed to edit, even disruptively in our own opinion, and Wikipedia generally allows for it. You can be outmaneuvered, or even outvoted. Best to focus on work you do enjoy if someone is vexing you. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "He should have sandboxed" doesn't work. Anyone who has ever created an article knows that no matter how much sandboxing you do, on or off wiki, you almost always have to make some edits after you paste the new article into mainspace. The in use template should be respected. Outside of BLP violations or threats of harm or something like that, there is never any reason to edit a page someone else is actively editing with the in use template, or that someone is in the process of actively creating (or as here, both). Lev!vich 01:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Maybe the ‘In Use’ template should be updated to say explicitly do not edit, etc., instead it says “To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed.” And people ignore it and conflicts like this happen. When it happened to me I learned to not bother using that template anymore, and try to do as much as possible before going live. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• amazing how nobody invokes ignore all rules, which this situation is an example of exactly why that exists. rules are not meant to be applied because they're rules but because in most cases they're the rule. what disruption is being prevented here? none? wow, unblock. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.119.101.2 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Commentary from an RFU regular When I review unblock requests - after verifying that the block is valid, the things I look for are:

• An admission from the editor that they broke the rules
• An explanation from the editor that they now understand the rules
• A plan from the editor on how they intend to comply with the rules going forth.

• I see none of the above in this case.
• Failing that, what is the policy-based argument that the block is invalid? SQL^{Query me!} 02:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@SQL: I think it's unhelpful to frame the question as whether a block was invalid. It's much more constructive to ask the positice question of whether a block was appropriate in all the circumstances.

In this case, the relevant policy is at WPWikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption, from which I quote the first sentence:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia

When this block is assessed against the policy, we get a very different answer to that found by the blocking admin. We had Koavf building a start-class article, and we had Gagaluv1 basically buggering up the work by getting in the way, even to the extent of twice violating WP:CITEVAR. Koavf responded properly by starting a dialogue, but Gagaluv1 declined Koavf's request wait 45 minutes, and persisted in tweaking the article as it was being built.

The overall situation is very clear: Gagaluv1 was being an unhelpful pain-in-the-neck, goading Koavf. The disruption initiated by Gagaluv1 and sustained by Gagaluv1 led to both editors crossing the 3RR line.

Unfortunately, the blocking admin chose to look only at one aspect of this: the 3RR violations. And on that basis, El C applied an escalating 3RR block.

So the policy-based reason for overturning the block is that it does not support the policy goal quoted above. Its effect was to endorse the uncivil, uncollegiate conduct of Gagaluv1 and thereby to interfere with harmonious working, and to undermine the effort of an editor building encyclopedic content. In other words, poor reasoning has led a well-intentioned admin to impose a block which has actually undermined policy.

I stress that I do not in any way doubt or question El C's good faith. What I do object to is their narrow framing of the issue: their failure to properly take into account the actual goal of blocking policy, and instead to focus only on one detail which is measurable. This is a systemic risk danger with bright-line rules: when applied without considering all the circumstances, they can lead to perverse outcomes, as happened here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a systemic risk danger with bright-line rules: when applied without considering all the circumstances, they can lead to perverse outcomes, as happened here.

But these are the rules here. There is no argument that Koavf wasn't aware of these rules. If you would like to change the policy on edit warring, WT:EW ( or even WP:VPP ) would be the place to start.

As to the argument about the other editor, I would refer to WP:NOTTHEM from the Guide to appealing blocks. SQL^{Query me!} 13:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@SQL: you asked about policy. Then when pointed to the relevant policy, you aren't interested. Pity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

This is why we need to deprecate WP:NOTTHEM. It's become a convenient way of ignoring the full context of an incident. Mitigating factors should always be relevant. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maintain block unless the above criteria quoted by SQL are met, and Koavf agrees to create and complete new articles in his sandbox or draftspace rather than using article-space as a drafting board. Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Phooey - there is no reason he should not use "article-space as a drafting board". Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maintain block - This is a textbook escalating block. The 3RR vio was objective, and the block length is not unreasonable given that there was a 2 week block last month, and El C's defense of the block makes sense, given that 2 out of the last 3 blocks for edit warring were lifted early in favor of a voluntary resolution, only to lead to more violations. BHG arguing that it was unfair for Justin to be blocked 31 times longer than their opponent is a red herring, because it ignores all of this context that justifies the obvious discrepancy. In terms of our norms and standard practices, there's nothing unusual or unfair here. The blocked user is not even offering a basic voluntary resolution, and indeed they did not even appeal the block. The only unusual thing about this situation is that Koavf is a user with 2 million edits and friends users willing to bend over backwards to protect him. Even this kind of third party forced block review, whether or not it is technically allowed, is unheard of. This intractable problem where we endlessly protect "power users" needs to stop. But at this point it's comical, I've been saying that for the past 12 years and it seems we've gotten nowhere. Not even Framgate was enough to break this endless cycle. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I was expecting that someone would try making the ABF claim that I am just defending a friend. The reality is quite the opposite: Koavf and I have got up each others noses for years, and our last encounter was a trainwreck. Far from defending a friend, I am defending someone who I find thoroughly annoying, and who I usually strive to avoid. I hope that Swarm will strike that demonstrably false assertion.
    Far from ignoring the context, my whole reason for opening this review is that the bloc focused only on the easily-measurable issue of the bright line ... and ignored the fact that Koavf's content creation was being disrupted by an editor whose conduct was someone on the spectrum from discourteous to menace.
    So on the two key points which swarm raised, Swarm has managed to entirely invert the reality of my position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Please strike your accusation that I am not assuming good faith. I did not accuse you of being Koavf's friend, so there's no need to get defensive. I merely pointed out the reality of the situation, that the only thing that makes this not an uncontentious block is the fact that Koavf is a "power user", and such users have no shortage of people who will go out of their way to defend them, and I have no doubt that you understand exactly what I'm talking about. That has always been the case and I will not apologize for not pretending that this is obvious special treatment that a user is receiving because of their status. Though you do bring up a good point, defenders of power users are not limited to their "friends", so I will gladly amend that wording. Again, I'm not saying anything about you, so don't come after me acting like you're being attacked. Your second point just gets to the basics of edit warring. Per Justin's own defense, the "disruption" was another user trying to edit a live article while he was editing it. He placed an {{In use}} tag and was running into edit conflicts, so yes, I understand where the frustration would have come from, but this is a minor inconvenience at best, not a license to edit war, and certainly not a 3RR exemption, as the blocking admin pointed out. The other user was maybe a bit uncourteous to edit through the tag, but they were clearly editing in good faith and making every effort to engage in good faith discussion when Justin falsely claimed that they were required to stop editing the article, and threatened them if they didn't. {{In use}} does not override WP:BOLD. The context of being frustrated is relevant, however not relevant enough to outweigh the context of a 3RR violation with several recent blocks for the same offense, and certainly not relevant enough to take some extreme measure of forcing an unrequested block review in which objective violations are excused and routine blocks are framed as draconian. It's obviously inaccurate and inappropriate to frame Justin as a victim of a disruptive editing situation. He got into a bit of a spat with another editor, they both violated 3RR, and they both received an appropriate block. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Swarm, you clearly stated that Koavf is being defended by friends. That is an assumption of bad faith.

You have doubled down on that by assuming that Koavf is being defended because he is a "power user". That too is an assumption of bad faith: per my opening statement, I am defending Koavf because he was an editor creating content who was systematically disrupted, and goaded into one revert too many. The fact that he is a "power user" only makes the response more absurd (blocking a prolific contributor while the mischief-maker gets off with a trivial block), but that a secondary issue. No editor should be so harshly punished for an imperfect response to sustained goading.

Kindly have the decency to own your own words rather than accuse me of fabrication. And please stop assuming bad faith. And don't make bogus allegations then call the replies defensive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (in addition to my !vote above): My observation over the years is that El C's admin actions are extremely well considered, and always designed to support and help Wikipedia and maintain its proper and peaceful function. Further, El C is one of the mildest-mannered (if not the mildest mannered) admins I have ever come across, which is another reason that he does not take action lightly. Secondly, in my opinion we are wasting an enormous amount of time and emotion here second-guessing a block which, as was noted early one, can be appealed by the blocked user (who is an experienced Wikipedian and does not need help) if they so desire. Thirdly, if the blocked user does not wish to appeal the block in accordance with the guidelines posted by SQL above, they can use the time period of their block to expand their newly created article, by using a portion of their talkpage as a drafting space (this would IMO not seem to violate any policy, and I've seen other blocked editors do some variation of this). Softlavender (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. and my request is not based upon "friendship" with Justin, or him being a "super user". but from the obvious reason that Koafv is not to blame for the edit war. I agree with User:Davey2010 that Justin 1. added an {{in use}} tag to the article, 2. which Gagaluv1 ignored repeatedly, 3. Justin went to the talkpage the hope of getting Gaga to stop, 4. which Gaga ignored repeatedly, so I can't fault Justin for reverting. Also IMHO Gaga is to blame here not Justin. and as User:BrownHairedGirl has pointed out, the content creator (Koavf) has been blocked for 31 times as long as the disruptor. The first case here is that Gaga disrupted an inuse tag. The rest is just consequences of that. If Justin will not be unblocked, I guess the InUse template is useless as protection and if not deleted, should contain info, that its more or less meaningless, except as information that someone is working on a article. Dan Koehl (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• This rationale is not rooted in edit warring policy. We don't assign "blame", being "right" or being "provoked" is not an excuse. None of what you say invalidates a block for edit warring, and you're also ignoring the already-explained context that led to the discrepancy between block lengths. It's unclear why you're advocating that a serial edit warrior should receive special treatment exempting them from our basic edit warring principles. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block – The best way to deal with repeated 3RR violations is with escalating blocks, and El C is to be commended for making the tough call here. If Koavf wants to be unblocked he can file an unblock request convincing an administrator that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to the project, and any admin can unblock. If Koavf returns to further edit warring after this block expires or is appealed, the next block should be longer. – bradv🍁 04:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I see that Koavf has now filed an unblock request. However, it does not address the reason for the block, nor does it provide any assurances that there won't be further edit warring. This would typically receive a response along the lines of {{Decline reason here}}. – bradv🍁 14:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Overturn - per Levivich, BrownHairedGirl's OP, and Dan Koehl. Yeah, it's patently obvious what's wrong here for me too. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

since nobody seems to have taken my last comment into consideration, per the blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users" - what damage is being prevented here? No damage was done by the user whose block is requested to be reviewed, in fact, the user blocked was trying to improve the encyclopedia, and the damage was entirely done by the other party. Further, none of the three points under "Blocks should be preventative" are met here - no imminent/continuing damage is or would occur (improvement to articles would occur), no disruptive behavior was made by the blocked editor (in fact, the other editor was the one disrupting), and the other editor was the one not being "productive" or "congenial" by continuing to undo/revert actions after being asked to stop/discuss. There is literally no basis in the blocking policy for this block, and this is entirely the case where ignore all rules (namely ignoring 3rr) applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.119.101.2 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The block is preventative, not punitive. The editor had been blocked three previous times within the past month, for edit-warring. The block lengths are escalated for preventative purposes, because since the editor did not get the message (or made false promises) with shorter blocks, increasingly longer blocks are designed to drive the message home (i.e., prevent future edit-warring). Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Maintain the block pending a formal appeal - I'll touch here with my two cents if you don't mind hearing the view of some "little editor" of Wikipedia folks.The first and fundamental issue I'm seeing is that the affected editor is not appealing the ban himself.[14] All I'm seeing from them are these words written on their talk page in response to the block: "What are you talking about?", "Are you serious?", "You have to be kidding me?" and so on. I appreciate the fact that BrownHairedGirl took an active position opposing the block [15], but this is not how it suppose to be done. How do you know they even wish to appeal the ban? Therefore a formal, proper appeal should be presented by the editor affected, not handled by the third party on this board (sorry BrownHairedGir). A second less critical issue, but notable to me, is that other administrators are commenting here, somehow undermining and doubting the blocking administrator's decision. Here is why I think this is wrong. You guys (administrators) have a challenging and stressful job to do, and I respect you all, but diminishing each other choices makes your judgments, as a group, to be weak in the view of regular editors, like me. At least this is my impression. Choosing to block somebody, I imagine, is not an easy task to execute and requires courage, firmness and confidence in your own decisions. This should be respected, even if you think that you would have chosen a different path. I consider EI_C to be one of the best administrators from your team, even thou they were not always sympathetic to me[16]. I have no opinion on the decision itself, but I believe the affected user should appeal the ban themselves. This should be reviewed, as usual, as standard, by another (uninvolved) member of the administrative team. Whatever choice that person takes, it should be respected and appreciated as it should be respected and appreciated the decision of the current blocking administrator. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• A core issue behind this block is that there is no effective way of dealing with disruptive editors who are not breaking any clear bright lines. Disruptive edits that aren't vandalism are difficult to deal with, especially on new or obscure pages that have few if any watchers. While there seems to be agreement above that Gagaluv1 was being disruptive, and there is some support for the in use tag, this thread offers no solution as to what course of action Koavf could have taken to solve the dispute aside from unilaterally deciding to IAR 3RR. CMD (talk) 07:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Koavf could have posted a full article rather than one that was 12 words long: [17]. He could have let the perfectly good added infobox stand instead of removing it without explanation with the bullying edit-summary "Rv. Stop.": [18]. He could have respected the in-use tag that Gagaluv1 added [19] rather than edit-warring and reverting his edits [20]. He could have explained his reverts (Gagaluv1 explained his edit [21]) instead of simply reverting with no edit summary: [22]. He could have gone immediately to the article talk page to gain consensus and discuss content instead of edit-warring. He could have stayed off of Gagaluv1's talkpage instead of haranguing him there rather than using articletalk for discussion of content and policy [23]. He could have avoided making more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. He could have AGFed and had a pleasant discussion instead of browbeating. He could have gone to his sandbox, completed his additions to the article as he saw fit in a draft there, and then (making sure he wasn't violating 3RR) copy+pasted that into the live article, whilst explaining his points on article talk. Softlavender (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

None of those address what others are saying above about the block being a lopsided response to a series of disruptive edits, which was the reason behind this AN thread. They also put all the burden on the original editor rather than the disruptive editor, which reinforces the idea that disruption is difficult to deal with. As your examples show the standard called for actions all leave the disruptive edits in place. Many here argue that the block be overturned or reduced due to not accounting for the level of disruption, but the only clear policy being cited is to IAR 3RR. That this thread is here and has as much support as it does shows a difference between policy and what many feel is the correct course of action. CMD (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

The two blocks are not equal in length because Gagaluv1 had a clean block log, whereas Koavf had been blocked 22 times already, mainly for edit-warring, and had been blocked three times in the past month for 3RR. Gagaluv1's edits were constructive; many of them may have been made while Koavf had an in-use tag on the article, but Koavf did the same thing -- he edited the article while Gagaluv1's in-use tag was on the article. Gagaluv1 explained at least some of his edits (via edit summary); Koavf did not. Lastly, the way to deal with any editor or edits you disagree with is never to edit-war, but to explain your edits, via edit-summaries and then on article-talk if there is still disagreement. Please read WP:EDITWAR: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Softlavender (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Softlavender, your description is exactly what Gagaluv1 did and has been doing in the past: reverting back to their preferred version, intentionally disrupting article building in the process (removing referenced material). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Beetstra, both editors were edit-warring, and both editors were blocked. Koafv's block was longer because he had been blocked 22 previous times, mainly for edit-warring, and within the past month he had been blocked three times for edit-warring. Gagaluv1 had a clean block log, so his block was shorter. Please read WP:EDITWAR: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure why a quote from EDITWAR is being directed at me. I explicitly noted twice that the only policy justification being presented to lift the block is IAR. I feel that demonstrates at least some familiarity with the policies and guidelines around edit warring. Perhaps direct the "please read" comments at someone who is arguing for unblocking despite the edit war policy and guidelines? CMD (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Without commenting on the block, let me concentrate on the following aspect. It is clear that different users, even in this thread, perceive {{inuse}} differently. Some think that it should be taken very seriously, and one may edit an article with this template on only for removing copyright or BLP violations. Others think that this is a purely information template and anybody can edit such article in the same way as if the template was not there. I myself had a very bad experience a few years ago, when I created an article with this template on, and another user started editing it, constantly putting me in the edit conflict position (I guess they were using automatic tools). I went to their talk page, to be told that they are not going to mind the template, not for this article, not in the future. I overreacted, and users remembered me this overreaction for a long time, and the user has not even ben warned. None of the positions is currently explicit in the policies. (Well, by default probably the second one would be more policy-based). Would it make sense to go to the WP:VPP and try to get at least some consensus which can be coded in the policies, or it this hopeless?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ymblanter, people often game the system by using the in-use tag, especially when they want to circumvent normal editing practices and consensus-building, or when they have someone they disagree with and dislike and want to gain the upper hand. That's one reason there are no hard-and-fast policies about it. Softlavender (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Very dubious. You clearly don't like "in use" for some reason. If it is left on for much too long it can just be removed. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought it is being removed by bot after some inactivity period (24h?)--Ymblanter (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Not so sure of that - I just removed one on an article that had not been edited for 4 days, and by the placer for a week. But I'm sure he just forgot. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• • Seems incredibly obvious that none of those hypothetical examples are applicable here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Overturn block as time served a whole month does seem OTT. Why not use a partial block on the article instead? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• About this rule that only the blockee can start a block review request: Who came up with that, and why?—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. Time served is reasonable as per NYB. Govindaharihari (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block - long history of 3RR/edit warring, escalating blocks - why is this user any different from any one else? GiantSnowman 09:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Bad block As already discussed, the circumstances were such that blocking Koavf was unreasonable, if technically permissible under the current policy. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• All too often we see administrators taking action like Wikipedia is some kind of MMO. Editor casts "3RR violation," so admin casts "block." Non-blocked user casts "unblock review," admin casts "invalid thread." I've seen this attitude a lot with El_C, and it was on full display at the last block of Koavf, where they said "I am bound to the supremacy of 3RR in content disputes as an admin enforcing that bright line rule." We've seen time and time again 3RR violations that are not in fact solved by blocks but by open discussion. You can go to ANEW right now and see a couple examples of 3RR violations not ending with a block but the use of judgment to find an appropriate action not requiring sanctions. The point is we should be here, and our actions should be driven by, the goal of building an encyclopedia, not playing the MMO game. Koavf was in the process of creating a new article and ran into a bit of a tangle. The admin should be there to help solve the issue while enabling improvements to continue. El_C, in this case, only got it half right and should unblock. Rules are helpful until they aren't, and with long term, productive editors there is usually a better option than a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Break

Noting that Koavf has now posted an unblock request. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to grant the request, but let's see if a consensus develops on whether to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking based on Koavf's unblock request. The substance of his unblock request violates WP:EDITWAR, which reads "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." He has been advised by Glen, and by experienced editors in this thread, to post an unblock request in line with the criteria laid out by SQL in this thread. For someone who has been blocked 22 times, mainly for edit-warring, and who had already been blocked three times this month for edit-warring, I think that's the minimum that should be required in the unblock request. In my opinion, he should also commit to fully completing an article in sandbox or draftspace before posting it live, as a condition of an early unblock. Softlavender (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• bad blockS.  this 'edit' by user:Gagaluv1 removes properly referenced text that were added by user:Koavf, and re-introduces the {{in use}} that Koafv here removed. In fact, the before mentioned edit by Gagaluv1 is nothing more than a revert to Gagaluv1's previous version (with addition of 2 references, and a track listing). It is bluntly ignoring the {{in use}} tag and in that process overwriting good faith additions by the user who added the {{in use}} (and then removed it). This is beyond disruptive editing by Gagaluv1, this is intentionally hard pushing the information that he wanted in the article, ignoring anything else. This is a behaviour that they keep repeating: on a page was created by Koavf, who introduced a referencing style, Koafv maintained that reference style after Gagaluv1 introduced introduced a new/mixed reference style.   Gagaluv1 bluntly overwrites that reference style (diff followed by diff - hence intentionally moving back again from the original single cite variation to a mixture) and being pointed to that by Koavf (User talk:Gagaluv1#Formatting sources). Gagaluv1 on that article continues to use their preferred style as late as July, unified again by Koavf on August 10.

Maybe Koavf should have expressed this stronger in their reverts and the talkpage post, and this does not necessarily excuse repeated reversals up to 3RR (though, Gagaluv1's edits are clearly disruptive, at least bordering on vandalism), but I do feel that 3RR as sole basis for this block is not justified. Arriving 17 minutes after article creation and performing edits similar to edits that were discussed earlier between these 2 editors, ignoring a {{in use}} intentionally and insisting to do so ... (and note, the only two cases I could find where Gagaluv1 is changing reference styles are on the two pages discussed here). To me, this looks very, very much like picking a fight by Gagaluv1. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Decline unblock. Koavf has now made an unblock request, which means that we can address it here. Their reason for wanting to be unblocked is "The substance of my edits was clearly to improve the encyclopedia while another editor was clearly disruptive and made several objectively bad edits that explicitly contravened guidelines and policies." This is an invalid request because it does not address the reason for the block (3RR), but instead complains about the editing of others (WP:NOTTHEM). Sandstein 12:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock 72.80.58.47 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Decline unblock The situation presented in BHG's makes it look like the month-long block is overkill, but if you write the events from the perspective of how El_C has explained it, that this is the 3rd 3RR situation that Koavf had been involved with in 3 months, the prior two lifted early on voluntary promises to avoid further 3RR, and then did it again and had yet to explain themselves, and none of the edits fell into 3RRNO, its hard not to support the block. There were absolutely other actions Koavf could have taken when they neared 3RR on the latest case (including backing off at the 2nd revert, seeking help, etc.) Trying to frame it around the unequalness of the blocks for the action is missing the history involved here. --Masem (t) 12:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thinking ahead a few steps, I foresee that this thread may wind up reflecting a sharp division of opinions between those (including myself) who think that this block was barely necessary at all and in any event is horribly excessive, and those who think it was justified as a remedy given the multiple 3RR violations. This will raise a meta-question that I remember asking here as far back as 2006 but which AFAIK still does not have a clear answer: If an unblock review thread yields no consensus in either direction, is the proper outcome to leave the block in place (because there is no consensus to unblock), or to unblock (because there is no consensus that the user should remain blocked)? My view is that we should unblock in such a case, which I believe any admin (again including myself) would have the right to do, because unblocked is the default status—but this is probably something we should figure out someday outside the context of a specific instance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

NYB, my take on it is that if there is no consensus to unblock, then the block stays in place. The consensus trying to be reached is one of "should this block be lifted?" The onus being no if the block is valid, but should the user be unblocked. With no consensus to unblock, then the status quo would remain. The same would go for something like a IBAN, topic ban etc. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with RickinBaltimore. I'll just add that, in my opinion, when there is no consensus to unblock, any admin can still unblock as a result of a successful unblock request, unless it's a DS or something like that requiring consensus to overturn. Salvio 13:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Technically, any admin can undo a unilateral action by any other admin which is not backed by consensus. Hence, no consensus should default to unblock as long as there is at least one admin who supports unblocking. You could be pedantic about it and default to no unblock, but then any admin who wants to unblock would be free to do so unilaterally since there is no consensus that they shouldn't. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad that this meta-question needs to be addressed as a separate followup discussion. I personally agree that no consensus should default to unblock, but there is currently no policy on that question.

This discussion has also raised several other meta-issues which should be addressed on a policy level, including:

• the status of {{in use}} tags. There are clearly divergent views on their significance.
• the question of treating 3RR and its escalating-block principle as a mathematical formula. I take the view that any possible block should be assessed against all the relevant circumstances, but some editors take a more formulaic approach. That needs clarification.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Here is an idea from a little editor. Why don't you guys consider granting the unblock request and implement a temporary one revert only or %100 revert prohibition instead if there are so many disagreements? For like a month or even three months? I checked Justin's editing history (Justin is his real name, right? - Justinus in Latin = fair :)), and I noticed he is indeed trigger happy and gets into that revert thing quickly. However, he is a valuable contributor. Wouldn't the temporary revert forbiddance prevent the return of that behaviour and make Justin used to not reverting too quickly? - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block - Gagaluv1's behavior was rude, harassing, and disruptive, but that doesn't excuse Koavf edit warring. Koavf's history shows that they have not learned alternative means of resolving content disputes and editor conduct issues. - MrX 🖋 13:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - This article was in pages with incorrect ref formatting, where I frequently work to reduce the backlog, and upon observing the in use tag which clearly says please do not edit this page while this message is displayed, I left it alone, as should have Gagaluv1. Bad block in my opinion. If editor's can't work in peace to produce content without constantly being disrupted, then get rid of the in use tag. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Reduce the block duration to 7-10 days but only if Koavf admits some degree of wrongdoing. IMO, Koavf definitely committed a 3RR violation here and El C was justified in issuing an edit warring block, although the duration was possibly excessive. The presence of 'in use' tag on an article in mainspace does not magically exempt it from the WP:OWN requirements. Users, especially experienced users, should not be using mainspace in lieu of their sandbox. Certainly it would have been extremely annoying for Koavf to see a major edit by another editor appear while he was expanding the new article, but the correct response should still have been to take the matter to the article talk page rather than start reverting. The response by Kovaf in the unblock request template at User talk:Koavf#Please reconsider this block is extremely troubling. There is no hint there of admitting any degree of responsibility in this episode whatsoever: "I was adding content to the encyclopedia, just as I have done for the past 15+ years and that the substance of my edits was clearly to improve the encyclopedia while another editor was clearly disruptive and made several objectively bad edits that explicitly contravened guidelines and policies." Especially given Koavf's extensive block history for edit warring, this attitude is unacceptable. I think that no reduction in the duration of the block should be entertained until Koavf meaninfully admits some wrongdoing here. Nsk92 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

"...Especially given Koavf's extensive block history..." To be fair to Kovaf, apart from the recent blip in the past month, he has a pretty much clean block log for the past decade, with the majority of those blocks dating 10 to 15 years ago. The current climate must have an impact to even the most seasoned of editors. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - at the end of the day, creating new articles, and developing old ones, must logically be what is good for the project. Why punish anyone trying do improve the Wikipedia? Regardless of what happened, a one hour block would have been enough, I see NO logical sense of this long time blocking. Justin had no intention in harming the project, and most probably never had. Why punish someone who is positively wanting to contribute like this? Dan Koehl (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • In probably about 99% of all edit warring situations both sides are absolutely convinced that their intention is to improve the project. The problem is not with the intentions but with the effect of edit wars -- they still need to be prevented. Nsk92 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Overturn/reduce A month is too long. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'll ask again: Why can only the blockee request a block review? Who came up with that rule, and on what grounds did they add it? In this context the rule looks like a really terrible one. Borderline abusive.—S Marshall T/C 15:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  What? Is it that you don't know how to find the policy and research yourself? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I do know how to do that, and, the policy doesn't say it. It seems to have been added to a subsidiary guideline at some time after I needed to appeal a bad block, but I'm not able to locate an edit with a clear edit summary that explains why and I can't find a consensus in the archives to support it, so I thought I'd ask here where people should know.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know the origin in the written guideline, but I have argued in support of this in the past. As sanctioned editors are the ones directly affected by the imposed sanction, they should retain control over when and how an appeal is made. It's fine if they agree to someone else making an appeal, but their right to craft their own appeal shouldn't be pre-empted by others. (I do think there is a fuzzy area regarding other parties requesting a general review of how a situation was handled overall.) isaacl (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Also, when the community reviews a block, we are not just deciding to reduce the time. If the community is asked to review a block, we have the ability to extend the duration or raise it to a CBAN if the circumstances support it. It's not fair to place an editor in that position without their consent. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  The problem I have with this rule is that if, hypothetically, a sysop makes a bad block and the victim quits Wikipedia in disgust, we're not allowed to talk about it. I think all sysop decisions should be reviewable by the community. The risk that an editor might get their block extended doesn't outweigh the community's need to supervise and scrutinize sysops.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, the community remains free to supervise, scrutinize and discuss a questionable block all day long. What it cannot do, absent an appeal by the blocked user, is lift or change the block. That's necessary because, apart from the issues mentioned above, the unblock request is a crucial part of our unblock process (hence why WP:GAB is so long). Through the unblock request, we seek to determine whether the user understands what they're blocked for, and whether they credibly commit not to repeat whatever got them blocked (in this case, violating 3RR). If there is no unblock request, we cannot make this determination. And as to your hypothetical of a user ragequitting after a bad block, that is not the situation at issue here. Even if it were, if a user cannot or will not communicate why their block was mistaken, they are likely unsuited to a collaborative project that requires active communication skills, and there's no reason to believe that an unblock would bring them back. Sandstein 12:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Does this mean we distinguish a block review from a discussion about a block? That seems like a very fine point to me; and I'd certainly like to feel that the community was empowered to overturn a bad block on its own initiative, if that was appropriate, even absent an appeal by the victim. As a basic safeguard against misuse of the tools, I feel users shouldn't need standing to start a discussion about an administrative action.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Decline unblock Basically per Masem. Also, we all have chosen of our own free will to publish on a public internet wiki so can't be surprised that basically anyone can edit anything at anytime, and because of that we have things like 'three revert' or the entire publishing system fails. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding unblocking as the appeal advances, the standards are in the appeal guidelines -- it's unfortunate and a waste the standard appeal was not previously followed on the user talk page, so return it to that talk page for what discussion remains, a good purpose of the regular order is to avoid users becoming AN spectacle. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• This is a good point. The 3RR is a rare example of a bright-line rule, and it's old. We had a for-real vote on it in 2004: Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Some of us later regretted that, but mostly because of the gaming inherent in a bright-line rule. The point wasn't that two reverts are okay, three is bad, and more than that you're blocked. The point was that revert-warring is harmful to the encyclopedia, you shouldn't do it, and administrators should feel empowered to take the then somewhat drastic step of blocking you if you're doing it.

  There's a related point here that I think some are missing, maybe always missed. Obvious vandalism was always an exception to 3RR, because we assume good faith with people who edit-warring. Edit wars happen between people who have competing visions about content on the encyclopedia but aren't able to sort it out on the talk page. In that environment the editing process has broken down. Blocks are one way to solve that. Page protection is another. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to edit war over content, good faith or no. Mackensen (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Why are some editors voting twice? Are we voting separately on the unblock request and on the original block? If so, put me down for unblock for both, for the reasons I stated above. I'm honestly shocked to see so many editors suggest it's ok or nbd to edit through an in use tag. First time in two years here that I've seen that opinion expressed. Never has the divide between content creators and non content creators been so clear to me. FWIW I would support some changes to policies to make clear that editing through the in use and under construction tags is considered disruptive. Hell I think reverting such edits should be added to the list of 3RRNO. Lev!vich 16:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Why are some editors voting twice? For those people who have expressed a bolded opinion twice, it's because the first !vote was regarding the request for a block review, and the second is responding to Koavf's much later unblock request as noted by Newyorkbrad. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Well, I've been here 17 years and this is the first time I've seen the opinion expressed that {{inuse}} was anything other than a polite notice to others, so today is a learning experience for everyone. I'm genuinely interested to hear more about where this idea comes from; I find it hard to square with our other content policies. Mackensen (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Mackensen, I would not take much notice of a claim, at two years, as to knowing more about content creation - it's rather like, well, other common poor behavior on the internet that is denied. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Nowhere have I claimed to know more about, or anything about, content creation. Lev!vich 16:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Would other common poor behavior on the internet include strawman and ad hominem arguments? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  It comes from the template message itself: This page is actively undergoing a major edit for a short while. To help avoid edit conflicts, please do not edit this page while this message is displayed. If it's considered OK to edit through an in use tag, what's the point of the in use tag? Lev!vich 16:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  @Levivich: I am shocked that you are shocked! -:) I have never heard of {{inuse}} being anything other than a courtesy notice, 'courtesy' being the operative word. The tag does not magically override WP:E, WP:OWN and WP:3RR. The moment an article has been posted to mainspace, any editor is allowed to edit it. If you want to introduce policy changes giving the 'in use' and 'under construction' tags the power to suspend WP:OWN, you are welcome to try, but I am pretty sure it's not going to work. Nsk92 (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't say anything about overriding OWN or overriding anything :-) Do you think it's OK to edit through an in use tag? Yes or no? I'm saying the answer is no. Do you disagree? I don't believe you disagree. I don't believe anyone thinks it's OK to edit through an in use tag. I really can't wrap my mind around the concept. Can anyone show me an example of this being done, of an editor editing through an in use tag, and nobody complaining about it? I've seen the opposite happen, I've just never before seen someone edit through an in use tag and it be considered acceptable by other editors. Lev!vich 16:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I am absolutely saying it is permissible to edit through the 'in use' tag although in most cases it is advisable not to do so. The word 'OK' is too amorphous to be used here and does not really mean anything to me. In particular, an edit through the 'in use' tag is never disruptive, just because the tag is there. To say that it is not permissible to edit through the 'in use' tag would be to give the tag the power to suspend the WP:OWN. Personally, I would try to avoid editing through the tag in most cases, but that's just a matter of common courtesy. Even such courtesy should have significant limits. For example, if somebody leaves a clearly inadequate article in mainspace with an 'in use' tag on it, and then just disappears for a couple of days, I would not think much about editing through the tag or even just removing it. Nsk92 (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  To me, "not ok" means in most cases it is advisable not to do so, so I think we agree. Personally, I would try to avoid editing through the tag in most cases, but that's just a matter of common courtesy is exactly my point: you, me, and everyone else believes not editing through the tag is a matter of common courtesy. Lev!vich 18:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know. Like I said, there's a large distance between discourtesy and disruption. Plus there may be other reasons to edit through the {{inuse}} tag, and those tags themselves can be abused and used as a form of sharp elbows, to circumvent the process of obtaining consensus for contentious edits first. There is another thread here at WP:AN right now that possibly illustrates this point, although I am not sure if that's what's actually going on there, WP:AN#Steps to resolve a mathematics content/conduct dispute. As I understand, one of the issues there is that one of the editors involved in the dispute was making significant changes and put an 'under construction' tag on the article section in question while this was happening. Another editor reverted the edit and something close to an edit war followed (I think). In any case, these courtesy tags should certainly be treated as no more than such, and the moment somone removes them or edits through them, the matter should go straight to the article talk page for further discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support reduction to time served. I have a small history with Koavf, most recently helping to mediate a dispute in which he was involved. Koavf's actions here were not appropriate, and a block was appropriate. However, I think that even considering Koavf's history of edit warring (both 3RR violations and violations of other reversion-related policies, like WP:TPEDISPUTE), given the context of the particular edit war that Koavf was in, this block was too long. That said, if Koavf wishes to create a new article without others making changes, userspace is a more prudent choice than mainspace. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  Upon further reflection, I suggest an unblock condition: 1RR, all namespaces, all of the time (with the usual exemptions, narrowly construed). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• 3RR is stupid to treat as a bright line. Someone should probably point out the elephant in the room. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify, I didn't mean this as any criticism of El C's actions here whatsoever, but rather as a general issue about 3RR, which this case perhaps helps highlight. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• The block was clearly valid (Koavf has form including an Arbcom 1RR restriction). However, I think the purpose of the block has been fulfilled so an early unblock would be appropriate. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks to El_C who correctly blocked Koavf in an attempt to stop persistent edit warring. However, I ask would El_C please unblock now because this incident is not suitable for strong enforcement due to extreme provocation. I know we shouldn't tell Koavf that it's ok to edit war if you're right (and if he infers that he is totally wrong), but we should not reward a troll with a short block while their target gets a month. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• What about upping the troll's block (trolling is, after all, disruptive editing, and they almost certainly deserved a block for that as well as one for edit warring), but leavinig Koavf's as it is? After 5 years with regular EW blocks, Koavf managed to go for over 9 years without a block, but they seem to have returned to their previous behavior patterns. Since we have evidence that Koavf is capable of changing their behavior for the better, I think it's worthwhile to remind him of that with this current block. If, after some period of time, Koavf comes forward with a real unblock request showing that they understand why they were sanctioned and promising to go back on the wagon, edit-warring-wise, I think that request (as opposed to their pro-forma current one) should be granted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Because Gagaluv1 had a clean block log, and Koavf had been blocked for edit-warring twice within the past two months. So the block lengths were S.O.P. and the differential should not be a talking point here. Softlavender (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC); edited 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  Softlavender, if you're going to go to the trouble of bolding a statement you wrote, at least go to the trouble of making sure the statement is factually correct. Lev!vich 01:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Fixed now, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• And BTW, there is no policy which forbds editing through an "In Use" tag, the purpose of which is to ask other editors for their forbearance while changes are being made. Most editors will grant that authomatically, but some will not, for whatever reason. That's rude, perhaps, but it's not a violation of anything, and certainly shouldn't be an excuse for the editor who posted the "In Use" tag to go off the rails. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support original block. 3RR is a bright line and {{in use}} isn't - if we don't like that we can change it, but not retrospectively. Also endorse unblock if Koavf agrees to try not to do it again - blocks are preventative so there's no point in keeping it in place if they credibly acknowledge the issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• no useful opinion on block and its validity, but, based on everything I've read in this thread and on Koavf's talk page, I believe unblocking Koavf now is the best move for the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• How so? How is unblocking Koavf at this moment the "best move for the encyclopedia"? In what way that I am not aware of has Koavf taken responsibility for his actions and pledged not to repeat them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Koavf could get back to editing and creating content. Other editors wouldn't continue spending time in this thread and could spend it elsewhere (editing and creating content, e.g.). And I guess you weren't aware of this. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block, and oppose any unblock based on community concerns. However since this is not a cban, I'm fine with a normal unblock. I.E. an admin unblocking if an unblock is requested and the admin feels based on the responses from Justin that it is no longer needed as they understand what they did wrong and are unlikely to repeat it. To be clear, it's imperative Justin understands that if they continue down this wrong route, they are liable to end up blocked for long periods. Their conduct is clearly not acceptable whatever else others have done wrong. Also, while I'm not an admin and so have never dealt with an unblock request, Justin's current request seems to be the sort of common unblock request which will quickly be denied since it focuses on the wrongs of other editors rather than acknowledging their fault and what they will do to try and stop repeats of their misbehaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock I've waited before commenting here because I was affording Justin the opportunity to respond to SQL's criteria above which I believed to be a fair expectation for any admin considering his unblock request. Based on Justin's answer and formal request for unblock I believe the time served is reasonable, even taking into account the previous 3RR violations. His answer clearly outlines his understanding of wrongdoing and any further period block would simply serve to be punitive now. Personally I would be most comfortable if El C also agreed but I am more than happy to unblock based on his latest response. Glen (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Here is Koavf's unblock request:

Per the purely administrative concerns at WP:AN#Review_of_El_C's_block_of_Koavf, there are at least some editors who see a process issue with me not initiating or otherwise assenting to the block review. I appreciate the input of the several editors there who supported me and who correctly noted that I was adding content to the encyclopedia, just as I have done for the past 15+ years and that the substance of my edits was clearly to improve the encyclopedia while another editor was clearly disruptive and made several objectively bad edits that explicitly contravened guidelines and policies. Since this is a unique kind of request, it may be wise to continue any further discussion on that thread. Obviously, I cannot respond there, tho. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing there that can be construed as an "understanding of his wrongdoing". In point of fact, nothing that he says admits to any misdeeds on his part.

The first sentence is about this block review, not about his actions.

The first half of the second sentence points out that he was adding information, "just as I have done for the past 15+ years", which is, of course, irrelevant. Per WP:EW, "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense."

The seoncd section of Koavf's first sentence continues to make that argument that he was right, and the other guy was being disruptive -- which may or may not be true, but is still not a valid arguent to justify edit warring.

The third section of the long second sentence throws some more bad behavior of the other editor against the wall to see if it will stick. Koavf argues that the other editor's work as "objectively bad".

In short, at no time in his unblock request does Koavf take responsibility for doing something wrong. He simply contiues to blame it all on the other editor. There is absolutely no justificant in his unblock request for him to be unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, did you read his response linked to in my comment above? As you seem to have completely disregarded it. He clearly states "I will explicitly say that yes, it is the case that I reverted another editor's work more than three times in a 24-hour period on the same article and that the reasons I had for doing so were not some of the narrow exemptions provided by WP:3RRNO." Confused as to why you didn't address that at all. Glen (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Glen This explanation by Koavf is still missing the "and I should not have done that" bit. Nsk92 (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: I would suggest that unless you can show where Koafv has accepted responsibility for his part of the problem, and has pledged to do his best to avoid edit-warring behavior in the future, you do not unblock his with "time served". Unblocking without that would be -- in my opinion -- saying to Koavf that he can continue to edit as he is, drawing blocks for edit-warring, and he will be able to get off without taking responsibility. That would not be a good thing to tell someone with Koavf's recent block log. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock as time served. He broke the 3RR technicality and recognizes it. He was also goaded into breaking the 3RR technicality by the subpar behaviour of the opposing party.--Bob not snob (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that Koavf's last block was for two weeks, and "time served" at this moment is only 8 days. I've rarely seen block times go backward like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well the last block may have been for 2 weeks but was lifted after just over 7 days. So I'm not sure if it's clear a month long blocked of which 8 soon to be 9 days served is technically backwards. In terms of percentage time served of the block, yes it's backwards. In terms of actual time served, it's longer even if only barely. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic

Its hard to know what to think in this one. I just note that I don’t consider BHG’s appeal is very sound. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Chris.sherlock, "I don't know what's going on but I will badmouth someone who's not even involved, just because.". Reyk YO! 10:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC) lol, that’s not what I said. That user has been revert warring incessantly and El_C blocked him for some time to prevent disruption. BHG seems to believe she knows better than other admins. Perhaps the length of block may need mitigation, but given the number of reverts and general disruption if the editor in question, I tend to favour the judgement of the blocking admin. On balance, it was a good call. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC) @Chris.sherlock: I'd just point out that an admin noticeboard is definitely a bad place for you to continue your personal attacks on BHG. I would strongly consider striking those, or they will be removed for you. Black Kite (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Apologies. I have censored my posts, for your edification. I appreciate the, threats in good faith? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC) @Chris.sherlock: "lol", but going by your respective histories, it's abundantly clear that hers is more sound than your own, I'm afraid. ——Serial 10:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC) My feelings aren’t hurt, and I love you despite your opinion of me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC) This is a good example of why the noticeboards can be so harsh. "I don't have a helpful way of resolving this, but I don't like one of the people involved so I'm going to point that out." Mr Ernie (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Au contraire, I have nothing but love and good feeling towards BHG. Her cataloguing abilities are top-notch. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC) Thanks, @Mr Ernie. But to be honest, from what I have seen of Chris.sherlock's judgement, I am sadly unsurprised by Chris's comments here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl, I am not that familiar with Chris, but I had a brief look at his talk page and saw he told an editor to "go away" but immediately opened a new thread about him on the page that editor was supposed to keep away from. And just above you can see where Chris simply deleted inappropriate comments that had already been responded to instead of striking them, which is better since it doesn't throw off the context of the replies. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC) @Mr Ernie:, that sort of conduct seems sadly familiar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse block Even though IMO El C is very quick to block which does not align with our policy WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE - clearly this editor has not learned their lesson from their many many edit warring blocks. I may have miscounted but it looks like more than 10 different violations for edit warring and one was just one month ago. Once the article is live it no longer belongs to anyone per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Bottom line it is a very good block El C. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have a suggestion: reduce the block to 2 weeks from 4. Two reasons: The previous block ended up being a week in length (or so), and there are reasonable mitigating factors in this case that might suggest a slightly different path than escalation to a month from the originally 2-week block the last time. (I have no opinion on the matter myself, just seeing if anyone will go for a middle road.) --Izno (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Unblocked

Based on the unblock request and Koavf's subsequent comments, and also taking into account the discussion above and on his talkpage, I have reduced the block to "time served" and unblocked on that basis. My detailed rationale as well as my guidance to Koavf can be found at User talk:Koavf#Unblock rationale. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Brad: Just wondering, did you discuss this with El C before unblocking, as suggested in policy when overturning another admin's actions? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

El C and I both participated at length in the above thread and I fully understood his opinion on what was probably the most extensively discussed block of this entire year. I have also acknowledged his position in the basis and rationale for granting the unblock. There had been no further input either here or on the user talk page for several hours, and the time had come for a decision to be made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Wowsers, that was a lot of input from a lot editors, over an edit-warring block. Would take me over an hour, to read everything. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I skimmed it in ten minutes, my personal TL;dr would be "a lot of editors disagree on how literally to take policies on edit warring and blocking, with no consensus to maintain the block leading to a time-served unblock". I'd suggest some effort be made to carve out an exception for 3RR/EW for situations where an editor is actively creating an article and being disrupted (though the rules-cruft/instruction-creep folk might point out that the behavior of editing an in-use page is already disruption/harassment; maybe 3RR/EW shouldn't apply to reverts of disruption/harassment). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Thev 'in use', 'under construction' etc tags are just courtesy notices and have no policy force whatsoever. They don't magically overwrite WP:E and WP:OWN. Editing through such tags is not disruption and not harassment, and the use of such tags can in some circumstances itself be abusive and disruptive. There is no such thing as "article being created" in mainspace. The moment a page has been posted to mainspace, it has been created, and any editor is free to edit it there from that point on. Nobody owns it and WP:OWN applies. Not only that, but NPP and various bot and maintenances taggings often occur shortly after the article has been posted to mainspace. To plaster an 'in use' tag there and tell everybody to bug off for the time being is WP:OWNish and smacks of displaing very sharp elblows. The best practice, especially for experienced editors, should be to use their user space or draft space to prepare an article to some reasonable shape and then post in to mainspace. And not to use mainspace as their sandbox and then get upset when they get interrupted. WP:OWN is sacred, but these 'in use', 'under construction' and the like tags are just courtesy notices for information purposes. Nobody should ever get blocked or sanctioned for disregarding them. Nsk92 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFPP backlog

Hello all, it looks like there is a bit of a backlog over at WP:RFPP. More than 30 open requests with some being almost a day old. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

We are back to normal now, thanks to everybody involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comments from Admins for WikiLoop DoubleCheck

Hi, admins,

I like to raise awareness a Request for Comment, the summary is we are planning feature sets related to how reviewers can review with the tool. Some features are relevant to providing features for admins to conduct administrative work (of course, they will require the reviewer was already such admin permissions in that given wiki). We think it's important to do things in the right way and some of the feature might be controversial or not. To err on the conservative side, we want to ask for communities feedback before we go ahead and implement them.

Thank you!

Developer of WikiLoop DoubleCheck xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Steps to resolve a mathematics content/conduct dispute

There is an ongoing dispute between Mathsci (talk · contribs), Gumshoe2 (talk · contribs), D.Lazard (talk · contribs), other mathematical editors and possibly myself. Broadly the dispute is about the Mathsci (talk · contribs) prolific contributions on a wide number of related mathematics articles. Other editors find that he has a tendency to add a lot of technical detail which might be better on other pages, or might not even be appropriate to the encyclopedia at all. Beyond the content dispute is a number of user conduct issues and rapidly diminishing AGF.

There was a previous ANI discussion [24]. I think I was the only administrator who contributed to the thread which generated more heat that light. It ran for 12 days before I closed it. But Gumshoe2 (talk · contribs) was unhappy with the close and has continued the dispute on my talk page at User talk:Salix_alba#Mathsci and has requested a more formal WP:DR process.

Rather than delving into the actual nature of the dispute I'm more interested in possible processes we could uses. I've looked at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and nothing seems really appropriate. Resolution is made tricky by few administrators knowing much about the rather high level maths articles and those admins who do understand the content having previous long histories with Mathsci. I believe Mathsci has contacted @Doug Weller: and intends to contact @Newyorkbrad: on the issue. --Salix alba (talk): 16:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I appreciate it. I would just like to clarify that my issue with Mathsci is (what I see as) his absolute inability to have productive discussion on the talk pages, which for various reasons makes editing itself extremely difficult. It is not so much about his actual edits themselves (as everyone makes bad edits sometimes). It seems that in previous discussions this has been summarized as Mathsci being prickly or standoffish, but I find that this is somewhat orthogonal to the real problem (for me). I believe mathsci is editing in good faith. I am just trying to clarify where I’m coming from. Gumshoe2 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Quite hard really. Same cast, different channel. Eerily this seems like a staged event: very possibly it is. Since 25 July 2020, I have carefully been editing content on symmetry of second derivatives. This article has had very few edits, less than 500. Charles Matthews was one of the main contributors in 2003. I added classic content about two proofs by Hörmander and Dieudonné, both famous mathematicians. I found the sources and wrote the content. I also found and summarised an account of the history of the problem (1740-1940). The content is anodyne and neutral. At some stage on User talk:D.Lazard, D.Lazard and Gumshoe2 started discussions on this article. First of all they claimed (and still claim) that plagiarism and copy-violations had occurred in the historical account, which was a standard summary-paraphrase. That kind of summary is something I've been doing since editing in 2006. D.Lazard did not template the page (which he should have done) but reverted the content twice. I emailed Doug Weller to ask about this, mentioning Moonriddengirl and Diannaa as experts on copyright issues. In the end, an hour or two after that I completely rewrote my summary-paraphrase, with no complaints. Now in the article, Gumshoe2 and D.Lazard have started radically rewritnig the mathematical content. They have not consulted me even when they know I have been editing very recently. Instead they have presented their changes as a fait-accompli. Even when I marked the section as "under construction", D.Lazard ignored it and has blindly reverted it. There were also issues with content (Fubini's theorem for continuous functions) that were ignored. Any of the sources were simply appropriated from the sources I had found. The pair of them gave no justification for their edits at all. The strategy of removing content created by me was discussed in advance by the pair of them on D.Lazard's user talk page: they seem to be operating as some kind of WP:TAGTEAM. In addition Gumshoe2's edit history indicates that he has been WP:FOLLOWING my edits. D.Lazard has had no particular interest in this area as far as I know. (Easy to check from his own whole editing history.) It is hard to know why Gumshoe2, with his brief editing history (~850 edits), has developed such an interest in me. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I encourage any readers to even briefly scan, for themselves, my five edits at Symmetry of second derivatives and my three messages on D.Lazard’s talk page. I believe they speak for themselves. My “following” of mathsci consists of edits of two wiki pages. Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathsci, I haven't looked at the complete details of this dispute, and at the moment will only comment on one aspect. It is my observation that the under construction template was ubiquitous in the early years of Wikipedia, but much less common recently. One important reason for this change is the existence of the draft space — prior to that space existing the template could be used for a brand-new article not quite ready for prime time. The existence of draft space is made that usage unnecessary.

It is also my observation (although I concede that I might be sharing my personal preference) that when one needs to make a major change to an article, the best option is to make that sequence of changes in a user space draft, and when it is ready (and possibly reviewed by interested editors) then moved to main space. I haven't looked closely at how it was used in Symmetry of second derivatives, but in general, I'm not sympathetic to complaints that this template was ignored or reverted. Major changes should, in general be discussed on talk pages before being implemented, and article should never be in a state that makes them unintelligible. there is almost never a need for such a situation. The use of such a template does not constitute an exception to the need to discuss on talk pages major changes to articles.

I know this template has survived a proposal for removal, but that proposal occurred prior to the existence of draft space, and I wouldn't be surprised if such a proposal produced a different result this time. No, I'm not ready to undertake such a proposal — just trying to emphasize that this template ought to be used extremely rarely if ever. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• (ec) On Bach-related articles the templates are used fairly often. Anyway, the kind of WP:TAGTEAMING that's been happening is not good. True, it's not uncommon in controversial areas, with civil POV pushing, etc. But today, after just under one month of editing, I produced careful content. The two other editors then decided to form part of a tag team, as documented on User talk:D.Lazard. Possibly because of some shared grievance, they decided that all the edits I had made last month would be removed. The removals today started with Gumshoe2 [25] and then D.Lazard. [26][27][28] It is exactly what they planned; D.Lazard even mentioned gaming the system with WP:ANEW. D.Lazard's three large removals seem to be part of a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. He has no expertise in the area of analysis/functional analysis (the Treatise of Analysis of Jean Dieudonné), although from my perspective the topic is relatively elementary. The pair Gumshoe2-D.Lazard have succeeded in creating a lot of instability in the article. D.Lazard was notified about these matters on AN, but so far has ignored them. Or has he just appeared now with a long speech .... Salix alba has already mentioned WP:FOLLOW: Gumshoe2's concentration on my edits is disquieting. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

To clarify for non-mathematical observers (I will avoid subjective comments): on the page Symmetry of second derivatives, there have been two edit disputes: one is a history section which takes essentially no domain expertise whatever to contribute to; the other is a mathematical section, where according to myself and D.Lazard, Mathsci has inappropriately inserted graduate-level functional analysis material from Dieudonne's book, when all that is actually needed (according to us) is barely above the level of multivariable calculus courses - with which D.Lazard (and any professional mathematician whatsoever) is familiar. Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. In my opinion the problem is not in the mathematical content of the disputed articles but the special conception that Mathsci has of the collaborative editing process of Wikipedia, and of the way of conducting discussions on the talk pages. If I well understand Mathsci's previous post, he considers that, for editing an article in which he is interested, one must have worked on the article before, and have a large history of Wikipedia editing. When a discussion is open on the talk page, he never discuss the point, but discuss users conduct, summarizes his preferred sources and repeat again and again that everything that he writes is carefully sourced. A typical example is Talk:Symmetry_of_second_derivatives#Fubini's theorem. Even a non-mathematician can understand that the question is about the scope of the article and not about the correctness of the mathematical content, and that Mathsci never adressed the opening question.

I could comment further Mathsci behavior, but everybody can see that despite his good faith, his behavior is highly disruptive, as making very difficult any improvement of the articles that he has edited. It seems that the disruption is not enough for an indefinite block, and it seems probable that a short block would not help. I suggests the following: to ban indefinitely Mathsci for editing directly any mathematical article. If he want to edit or revert an mathematical article, he must set an edit request, possibly prepared in a subpage of his talk page. Clearly, his edit requests could not be denied by me or Gumshoe2. If they should be denied, thus must be done by another established member of the Wikiproject mathematics. Such a specific ban would allow Wikipedia to benefit of his competence with few disruption (there is no need to reply to walls of comments on the talk pages, so these comments are much less disruptive than edit wars on the articles). D.Lazard (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

D.Lazard wants [sic] to ban indefinitely Mathsci for editing directly any mathematical article. Quelle horreur ! Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Meta-comment One well accepted paradigm is that content disputes belong on talk pages, while AN and ANI are the location to address behavioral disputes. This distinction sometimes gets blurred in certain subject areas, where passionate adherence to a viewpoint may believe they are engaging in good faith arguments but the heat may exceed the light. This can be exacerbated when the subject matter is not easily followed by a substantial proportion of editors. It is somewhat easier to understand why a highly charged political discussion leads to passionate wording as compared to a dispute over second derivatives, and there does thankfully seem to be an absence of name-calling, but it is not easy to sort out whether content disputes have crossed into behavioral issues in some cases. I see problematic behavior from multiple participants. I see contention about whether certain passages are violation of copyright policy, and my very limited review suggests that the answer isn't clear cut. I see reasonable questions being asked which are not answered. Seen editor wondering why another editor is interested in them even though it is perfectly understandable why someone with an interest in the subject would be following and contributing to talk page discussions. I see a suggestion that it's improper to privately contact an administrator. While my preference is to do things out in the open as much as possible, there are lots of situations where a private word with an administrator might be a sensible step. I see a question about why a proof of Fubini's theorem appears on an article about a different subject rather than on the article about Fubini's theorem, and I see a plausible response that Fubini's theorem may be equivalent to the assertions in the article. This is a perfect example of a dispute which is not easy for the non-mathematically inclined to tease out which party is being reasonable and which party is being unreasonable. I urge all parties to take a deep breath, attempt to engage in talk page discussions which might mean answering things you think are perfectly obvious, and we will sort this out. I see more than one party to this dispute who has made enormous contributions to this project, so I want to make sure that all continue to be contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 22:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick Your comment is completely reasonable. Mild-mannered intellectual discussion is what's needed. (BTW I think you are correct that Fubini's theorem for continuous functions is equivalent to the symmetry of mixed derivatives, cf Richard Beals' 1973 "Advanced Mathematical Analysis," pages 62-67.) Mathsci (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem to be addressed in Beals' book. An equivalence of Fubini's theorem for continuous functions and symmetry of second derivatives, in the case of continuous mixed derivatives, is explicitly the point of the Aksoy and Martelli article. I wasn't aware of this; it makes what I said below about the topic, suggesting that there shouldn't be an equivalence, effectively wrong. This is certainly something that could be mentioned in the article. I would like to note that when I asked for a reference on the talk page (a question which, as we see now, has a strikingly simple and direct answer), mathsci gave a response which completely avoided that question or anything else raised in my message. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Beals' treatment is quite idiosyncratic. His purpose was not to write a chapter on the history of mathematics. I provided the citations, not Gumshie2, so why is he pretending otherwise? The editing history of the article is clear enough. There are at least two other historical articles on the same topic on the several arXiv articles, but these are not probably intended for a general readership. Mathsci (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Two comments- I did not mean to imply that it is improper to privately contact an admin. I was only requesting that he would do so publicly. On Fubini’s theorem- the question was not answered since the answer appears to be complete nonsense. This is characteristic to many nominal answers Mathsci would give on the differential geometry of surfaces talk page, as I have detailed in earlier threads, such as the ANI thread. (I say the answer is nonsense because Fubinis theorem is vastly more general than the result in question, but because of the proof technique, the specific form of the result in question which Fubinis theorem gives is not even the optimal one; it requires continuity in a whole neighborhood. So a special case of Fubinis theorem just gives a particularly clear proof of a special case of the result in question. This doesn’t suggest anything close to an equivalence of results.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

My question. I understand it is difficult for many to judge some disputes which are related with advanced mathematics. Perhaps an administrator can clarify the following, slightly more abstract, question, which I posed to salix alba on his talk page, and which he posed a slightly broader form of to open this thread. I am posing it explicitly here, as I think salix alba's formulation mischaracterized the situation in an important way. If there is a more appropriate place for me to ask this question, please let me know.

Suppose you are an editor, who sees a technical page in your area of expertise which you think requires some major improvements, in part due to inaccuracies and in part for a lack of clarity. You start to make changes, but many are reverted by another editor who says things like "too many changes" or "go slower". You try to sort out some technical matters on the talk page, but the other editor fails to respond to the issues, giving answers like "read this book, then you will understand," in the process mistranslating from the book onto the wiki. He will not respond to direct questions, instead saying things like "I don't know why you're having problems with this book, it is a standard reference," never even attempting to address the claim that he has misunderstood the contents of the book. Later, he will be unable to explain material which he personally added to the page, during which, at various points, he refuses to check the reference you provide for it (just observing that the chapter title seems to be unrelated), to incorrectly insisting that another part of the same book is the proper reference (not even trying to address your own explanation that he is confusing two completely different angles with each other), to then saying that the material is actually incorrect and must be removed (because he has still ignored the reference you provided for it), to then finally verifying it to his own satisfaction; in the end he does not even reply to the original question of why the material should be included on the page.

All the while, you post on the relevant wikiproject to try to get more commentators so as to establish a consensus, but nobody new comes to comment. You describe it on a pre-existing ANI thread, but the only administrator to comment says that the math is too difficult to understand. The ANI thread is closed with the other editor vowing to "avoid personal comments" and to "behave well". This does not have an effect on the talk page behavior of the other editor.

Is there anything you can do about this? The answer of "just edit different pages" would be a real pity as the topic of the page is very close to your heart, and the page itself is still in bad shape. The above answer of "attempt to engage in talk page discussions which might mean answering things you think are perfectly obvious" is not very satisfying, as you believe this is precisely what you have been doing all along.

(to anyone trying to map this to the case at hand, I am describing events on the talk page at differential geometry of surfaces. Despite the partial details, I am not trying to re-litigate them, I am just trying to understand what someone in my position, who sees the situation as I do, ought to do) Gumshoe2 (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• The current disruption by the pair Gumshoe2-D.Lazard appears to have two aspects.

(1) Since August, Gumshoe2 has been WP:FOLLOWING my edits, aka "hounding" or "wikihouding". On User talk:D.Lazard, for whatever reason, Gumshoe2 appears to have nursed some kind of grudge, so far not properly articulated. Some hunch that I am "incapable of editing mathematics", a form of idée fixe. On Salix alba's talk page, on Doug Weller's talk page, on article talk pages, on WikiProject Mathematics, on ANI and now here, Gumshoe2 has persisted in his desire to "prove" this. But his current editing history in mainspace shows that Gumshhoe2 has out of the blue started editing disruptively and in bad faith on this elementary article; and that he planned to do so as a WP:TAGTEAM.

(2) D.Lazard does not have a clean track record on WP (warned by administrators for editing own wikipedia page). On this page D.Lazard has made unguarded edits, with exaggerated rhetoric. My editing history does not support D.Lazard' assertions about my mathematical editing, 2006-2020. D.Lazards's suggestion to ban indefinitely Mathsci for editing directly any mathematical article seems to be crankiness. Looking at his editing yesterday to the article and on its article talk page, it is appears that D.Lazard's blindly edit-warred with a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude on the article; and at no stage did D.Lazard make any edits to the article talk page to explain himself.

The article is meanwhile in an unstable state. I prepared sourced self-contained content on Fubini's theorem that is rigorous. Wikilinks to Fubini's theorem are inadequate because the wikipedia pages are all about measure theory. For this article, what is needed is an elementary version of Fubini's theorem, using the Dieudonné-Bourbaki framework of integration theory on compact spaces. I gave such a presentation, which could be shortened, simplified and summarised with appropriate citations. Leaving loose ends dangling, however, where readers might needlessly worry about sigma algebras, is not the way to write. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• (Some other editor should probably weight in; so here is). I cannot say I have closely followed the dispute. But, on the surface level (it's a pun...), this looks exactly like many other content disputes. One party adds some materials to an article; the other party removes or modifies it because, for instance, they are inappropriate for some reason. Like many others, I did find some calculus materials added by Mathsci to differential geometry of surfaces to be out of place and so I have just moved it to Draft:Calculus on Euclidean space (for now). A behavior issue arises *only when* a user keep insisting putting their materials against the community consensus. That's not the case here, I think. I did have noticed some strange communication failure; e.g., an interaction between Jakob.scholbach and Mathsci at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Expert_attention_on_Differential_Geometry_of_Surfaces. Perhaps this has contributed to the difficulty resolving a dispute. In any case, in Wikipedia, it is not always possible to resolve a content dispute by a discussion. Editors would have different opinions what is appropriate and what is not and, after some discussion, in the end, we need to resort to a majority rule. Any form of sanction against a user is needed only when the user cannot accept such a majority rule. -- Taku (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify again that my accusation against Mathsci is of disruptive editing on the talk page. I tried to summarize the two most major instances of this in "My question" above. The edits on the pages themselves are only tangentially related - sure, I think some of them are bad, but that doesn't seem terribly significant. (At the least, I have also made some bad wiki edits.) Gumshoe2 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The question I have for OP and others who share their concerns is: what's the remedy? Someone might want to make a formal proposal at this stage. Lev!vich 01:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As someone new to wikipedia and its formalities, I do not have a suggestion. To whoever makes a suggestion, please consider (as one small example) mathsci's above assertion "The pair of them [D.Lazard and Gumshoe2] gave no justification for their edits at all." It is easy to check whether or not this has any merit by taking a quick look at the article's history page (I have 5 edits there; D.Lazard has 6). This is just a particularly simple and direct example of how mathsci's discussions on the talk pages are totally unmoored from context. I'm pointing it out only because it is characteristic and, unlike the more significant examples, doesn't require any mathematical knowledge whatsoever in order to judge. And I would like to emphasize again, as it seems to often be missed, that my stated issue is with such talk page behavior and not with something like "inflexibility in content disputes". I hope this is taken into account. Gumshoe2 (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that other users have had similar issues with Mathsci, which I was not fully aware of until now. In this 2018 AN thread, there are a number of comments which strongly resonate with what I am saying here. For instance one user says "You waffle, obfuscate [...] try to divert from clear statements, avoid the point, write tldr walls of barely relevant (or even coherent) text, in fact do anything you can to weasel around your obstructive and deliberately frustrating attitude. [...] It's a familiar patten. Mathsci gets into conflict [...] blames everyone else [...] And ends up moving to a different topic when enough people have been pissed off only for the cycle to start again." Due to lack of familiarity, I can't say offhand if this was justified by the context there, but perhaps that thread and the links it contains (the user who posted the above comment links to another page, from 2016, which they say "clearly shows [Mathsci's] tactics when brought to a noticeboard") would be relevant for admins in understanding the present situation. Perhaps it is also notable in that it forms Mathsci's most recent wiki contribution until he started writing again two months ago. Behavior of a roughly similar nature seems to have been consistently ascribed to Mathsci by various users for at least ten years. I understand also that perhaps none of this old material is relevant; I don't know what admins like to use in deciding these things. Gumshoe2 (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The article which precipitated this report was symmetry of second derivatives, an insignificant and elementary article. The History section was recently rewritten by me (see above). It was claimed that it involved plagiarism and/or copyvios. That turned out to be a red herring. Doug Weller gave me some guidance on these matters. Slightly later there were problems concerning "Fubini's theorem", also involving the symmetry article (see above). The sloppy use of the term "Fubini's theorem" shows there was no serious relation between "Fubinis's theorem" (a topic in measure theory or probability theory) and the symmetry article. Instead the closest term on WP was iterated integrals, covered in first year undergraduate courses. A relevant WP:RS is Titchmarsh's 1932 "Theory of Functions," now added by me to the article. Modification of content has meanwhile resumed in the normal way with small incremental changes. Mathsci (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I encourage any interested observer, especially admins, to look into the actual situation here for themselves. This is a completely absurd way to describe it, with essentially no relation to reality. Mathsci's present comment "insignificant and elementary article" is in direct contrast with his earlier insistence on using graduate-level functional analysis (Dieudonne and Bourbaki) at length in the same article. Doug Weller's entire public comment, on his talk page, was "I told Mathsci that I think that User:Diannaa or User:Moonriddengirl know a lot more about this than I do. Let's wait to see if one of them comments here. Thanks." Mathsci's present comment on Fubini's theorem ("no serious relation") is remarkably strange, I simply cannot see any way of making sense out of it. It bears no relation to the discussion on the article's talk page. Altogether this type of talk page behavior is unreasonably erratic. It is consistent and extremely time-consuming to deal with. Gumshoe2 (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

We've been down this road before, many times, and the common denominator is Mathsci and ownership of articles. Accusing others of wiki stalking without real evidence is disruptive. Trying to namedrop arbitrators to insinuate other editors will be sanctioned is disruptive. Placing cleanup tags on sections because you don't like that it's not your version is disruptive. From the unblock statement back in 2016: I would be far more careful not to overreact. I would state problems with edits dispassionately and carefully avoid any personal comments about editors. I would be careful to show that my edits on talk pages are there to help other editors as much as to discuss improvements to the article. I would strenuously avoid giving the appearance of belittling other editors with different skills.[29] That promise has not been fulfilled. My recommendation is that if this behavior continues and AN is unable to do anything to adjust the behavior, a request for arbitration be filed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that there is over a ten year history of mathsci affirming to behave better, with admins saying that he should have one more chance, which seems to have usually made an effect for about a week. But I think I should clarify again that, a few comments aside, this issue is for me (D.Lazard is somewhat different) not in a direct way about personal comments or belittlement. Mathsci's talk page behavior and commentary is simply far too erratic; it usually feels like conversing with a loquacious AI trained on a few stock phrases and a database of math textbooks. Given the technicality of some of the material, I would be happy to go line by line through some of the talk page sections with an admin or arbitrator to carefully explain his evasions and misrepresentations. I would also be happy to file an arbitration request whenever is appropriate. Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

My contribution history shows no evidence of "weekly disputes" or "erratic behavior". Gumshoe2 writes, it usually feels like conversing with a loquacious AI trained on a few stock phrases and a database of math textbooks. However, in real life I have been a lecturer at the Universities of Liverpool and Cambridge; and I have also been an invited speaker at an International Congress of Mathematicians.

My edits on wikipedia started in July 2006 with mathematics, matters French and music. In 2010 I became involved in WP:ARBR&I, involving a controversial area. By mutual consent I voluntarily ceased editing in that area. In 2016, I stopped editing the article 2016 Nice truck attack, another controversial area, where I agree that belittling offensive remarks had been made about French translations and culture. In 2018, following a stroke at the end of December 2017, disputes arose as a result of Bach editing (e.g. Harpsichord Concerto in E major, BWV 1053 and BWV 1052). These were discussed on Newyorkbrad's user talk page with user:Softlavender and User:MastCell. Although at that stage I had stopped editing for health reasons, on 20 June 2018 a 2-way WP:IBAN was imposed. In the summer of 2018 my post-stroke health deteriorated further and I was hospitalized for 3 months. I have gradually recovered and returned to editing in June 2020. I was privately welcomed back on wiki email by one administrator. I also briefly communicated with Doug Weller on this talk page and by email. The email summarised comments already made about Moonriddengirl and Diannaa. Otherwise it concerned private matters. Recent mathematical edits from August 2020 concern elementary issues, a kind of "remedial calculus": the references date back to Princeton in 1909, Cambridge in 1907 and Oxford in 1932. The 1932 reference also is the usual way of handling the Fourier transform on Schwartz space I have looked back at edits on hermitian symmetric spaces which involved the use of algebra to understand complex geometry. This resulted in a series of articles on Jordan algebras from 2013: Hurwitz's theorem (composition algebras), quadratic Jordan algebra, mutation (Jordan algebra), etc. Bishonen's advice on avoiding "belittling remarks" has been taken on board, as reaffirmed recently on ANI. I am not sure why D.Lazard is suggesting that I must be banned from editing all matters involving mathematics. Neither he nor Gumshoe2 have given arguments based on my content contributions. Meanwhile the health problems have unfortunately not been resolved.

Please reread how Gumshoe2 writes, it usually feels like conversing with a loquacious AI trained on a few stock phrases and a database of math textbooks. If Gumshoe2 is writing like this, is there any basis at all for an eponymous arbcom case centred on me. After 850 edits, it's not clear why Gumshoe2 would be suggesting an arbcom case; certsinly it would be hard for me to take part in my current state of health. I apart from ARBR&I, I have participated in JzG & Abd, domcram, Nolander and Child of Midnight. Oh and PHG, all about Cyprus. Mathsci (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I am aware that you were an internationally recognized mathematician in the 1980s and 90s. I don't believe this has any bearing on the present situation whatsoever. I believe it is worth noting that you have left off some of your fractious wiki history, such as your ban from 2013 to 2016 for posting personal information about another editor, in addition to even earlier problems. Anyway, I was not trying to insult you with my phrase; I was trying to communicate the nature of your responses, how a message like "You are confusing object x with object y" might be responded to with some totally separate thing like "There is an eclectic proof of Theorem A in the classical 1953 textbook of Serre; the material itself is standard. I recall reading it in 2007." I am trying to ensure that this is communicated to outside observers, since it is here usually clouded by technical language; it seems that some observers think I am just disagreeing with your responses, when in reality I think that many of your responses are not genuinely responses at all. It is the same behavior remarked upon in 2016 and 2018 by other editors in the previous AN threads I linked to above. Gumshoe2 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Phrases like "loquacious AI trained" are surprising. In the case of WP:ARBR&I, an unban request was made 2 1/2 years later, so there's not much to discuss. This must be a parody: There is an eclectic proof of Theorem A in the classical 1953 textbook of Serre; the material itself is standard. I recall reading it in 2007. Not really how I write. Gumshoe2 also writes, I am trying to ensure that this is communicated to outside observers, since it is here usually clouded by technical language and in reality I think that many of your responses are not genuinely responses at all. It is the same behavior remarked upon in 2016 and 2018 by other editors Gumshoe2 has written that he wishes to be a party in an arbcom case. His editing on WP occurred in April-August 2020, but he has mentioned 2018 and 2016. So far my contribution in mathematics edits, covering 2006-2020, have not been systematically analysed with diffs. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

DC Extended Universe intervention

There has been an ongoing back-and-forth (increasingly impolite) about the Batman movie with Robert Pattinson (aka, the BatPat) being part of the DCEU. This was a discussion that has flared up a few times over the past two years bc of the vague definitions provided by directors and DC corporate marketing. After about 50 of these back and forth edits, I backed up the article to right before a lot of it got started, and told folk to use the talk page to sort out a consensus. Furthermore, I advised folk that if they continued edit-warring, I'd report them for it. I have no personal investment in the matter, save for it being in my watchlist. I have also requested RfPP to lock the page for a week, which should get people to use the talk page to hammer out a consensus edit. and initiated discussion on the talk page, to get people started.
I know that what I did was pretty heavy-handed. In the future, how could I handle that same sort of situation effectively? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: In response to your RFPP request, I semi-protected the article for 1 week. The article has a history of disruptive editing, in which mostly unregistered and new editors fight over controversial changes without attempting to seek consensus, and against that backdrop a 1-week semi-protection is on the more lenient end of things, but I think full protection here would have been a little premature. As far as how to handle the same sort of situation effectively in the future, warning the involved users about the edit warring policy, requesting page protection, and starting a talk page thread are good first steps. What probably wasn't a good idea was trying to encourage users to collaborate amicably while simultaneously calling them fanboi knuckleheads [30]. Mz7 (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough @Mz7:. I guess I was annoyed that everyone was trying to use the edit summaries to explain why they were right and everyone else was wrong, and reverting all the while. I'll strike that disparaging remark. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Wrongfully blocked

I have been wrongfully blocked by, I have no idea why.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.94.237 (talk) 09:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

You'll have to provide the user name/IP that was blocked, as there are no other contributions on this IP. Usually unblock requests would go on the effected talk page. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please delete the following revisions

Can the following edits [31], whose intermediate edits reference personal information, be deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done, but next time you should email oversight. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary removal

Imagine my surprise as I was going through my contribs only to find that one of them had an edit summary removed[32]. Imagine my confusion as I check the page logs and the only thing I can find are several removals with the text: "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". To my knowledge I'd never write anything like that in an edit summary, of course it's not remotely possible for me to see what my edit summary was since archive.org has only got a single snapshot of the history after all those edit summaries were removed. It appears, that around that time there was a request for page protection due to some IP vandalism, but my change was a simple grammatical error 9 months ago. I notice several removals around the time of the complaint. If someone could be so kind and reply with my edit summary and then likely restore it, because I'm fairly certain there wasn't a thing wrong with it, that would be great. Thanks.--125.129.16.99 (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would have to agree with that; it was one of two edit summaries revdelled at once, and while the other one deleted in that action was completely correct I don't see what the issue is with your edit summary. @Darkwind: since you carried it out, is there some other context here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess, but he's had a single edit in the last 3 weeks, I don't know if we can expect a timely answer or not.--125.129.16.99 (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no hurry here, we'll straighten it out one way or another but this isn't something we need to rush on. Worth at least giving Darkwind a chance first. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a bad deletion there, possibly in error - let's give Darkwind a chance to review first. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The edit summary of Special:Diff/920960994 is: "female is the right word here. Women isn't used in that manner" which doesn't strike me as RD2. Possibly a misclick. –xeno^talk 12:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

 Undone as the deleting admin appears to be away, this appears to be an error based on the discussion above. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

please help stop vandalism on Maratha_(caste) page

KobraPeshwa has been promoting the maratha caste all over wikipedia please see his edit history.[33]. User:Sitush has reverted his edits. He is obviously a sockpuppet. Now what he has done is put "dubious" in front of top quality sources on the Maratha_(caste) page and added external websites and pre-independence sources to promote his caste. He has tried to put Kshatriya in front of several maratha caste pages and on the maratha page he has put dubious infront of sources like cambridge university press etc..In short, anything that refers to the origin is marked as dubious. The page is a mess right now because it sources several preindependence sources and external websites. Please revert it to this version [34] when the protection template was removed. Thanking you in anticipation.LukeEmily (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

To give examples he has put dubious infront of these sources that are scholarly and by historians: The Maratha caste is originally formed from the amalgamation of families from the peasant (Kunbi), shepherd (Dhangar), blacksmith (Lohar), Sutar (carpenter), Bhandari, Thakar and Koli castes in Maharashtra. Many of them took to military service in the 16th century such as the Deccan sultanates or the Mughals. Later in the 17th and 18th centuries, they served in the armies of the Maratha empire, founded by the Maratha king Shivaji. Some were granted fiefs by the rulers for their service. This group of families, after gaining political power, "dressed themselves up" with appropriate genealogies and coalesced into the caste called "Maratha" that did not even exist before then.

References
References References

I've left the user both a WP:GS/CASTE notice and actually notified them of this discussion (which you should have already done). Primefac (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I full protected the page for 3 days and reverted to the last stable version. The next step is blocks. @LukeEmily and KobraPeshwa: Banners like this and this are entirely inappropriate. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and definitely don't proclaim your interpersonal dispute to hundreds of readers through a banner. Absolutely ridiculous. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

New editors' complaint against experienced editors and Boomerang

The editor is not new and did not want this further discussed. Fences&Windows 00:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday an editor lodged a complaint at AN/I, and did not want to continue the discussion, and the discussion was archived. I won't talk anything about that complaint at all. However other than AN/I, it was also posted at Wikimedia-l. Some people, there, told that they feel if it is a complaint by a new editor against an established/long-term editor, there are more chance to Wikipedia:BOOMERANG (1, 2). This makes me feel sad. In my experienced, I have never felt so. I was thinking to write to the mailing list narrating my view that the speculation is incorrect. If you have any thought/suggestion, kindly share. --Titodutta (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC) Titodutta, the editor you call "new" has been editing since March, 2016 and has over 8000 edits. Therefore, the speculation is not based on facts. This editor has also raised this issue on Facebook group called "Wikipedia Weekly". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Is the ONUS policy enforceable? Who can claim ONUS in an ongoing discussion?

At Steve Bannon there is an active discussion about including the recent indictment in the lead. The discussion is ongoing and has not been closed yet with consensus for inclusion or exclusion. However, editors have been adding the material to the page citing "consensus" before the discussion has been closed. Is it ok to claim consensus in an ongoing discussion? Must editors wait for a formal closure? I would appreciate some guidance here, as this will likely be contentious until a formal consensus / close is reached, with the usual associated edit warring. Thank you in advance. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As I already pointed out WP:ONUS does NOT mean "I get to set up a standard so ridiculous that no one can meet it so I get to do whatever I want". This isn't a question of WP:ONUS. That's been met. This is an issue of a couple editors stone walling and obfuscating and wikilawyering in defense of their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek 19:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Sure, ONUS is a policy. But so is WP:PRESERVE. Repeated deletion of material that meets core policies (V, RS, NPOV) is hardly defensible editing practice. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good point, but I'm also seeking input on whether an involved editor can claim "consensus" and include material before a discussion has been resolved. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

This is material in the lead, not the body. V, RS are both satisfied. NPOV with respect to the body is generally not in dispute, only if the content should be in the lead. Springee (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm semi-by-proxy involved due to the related convo on BLP/N but I will note that ONUS does say that given this is new info being added to the article, and it is a BLP, it should stay out of the lede (where its disputed, not in the body obviously) until the consensus is resolved by someone uninvolved. That is, it is the ONUS of those wishing to add new info that is has consensus to be kept in the lede. (I agree personally it should be in the lede, but by process, it should not be added yet). --Masem (t) 19:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm also involved. My feeling is this discussion would be much easier if when the material was originally challenged and removed we had gone to the talk page to discuss if/how it should be included and didn't edit war to include. I'm part of the unwashed masses as I was the first to challenge inclusion and have removed it from the lead two additional times. At this point some level of intervention would be helpful since the disputed material has been added/removed by at least 10 editors. Once the material was removed the first time we should have followed BRD. Even if we didn't agree it would have resulted in a less contentious discussion. We might still be where we are now, in an area where some say consensus has been established while others disagree and both sides adding/removing. Springee (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to think that one person objecting to something that several other editors support is reason for keeping material out of articles. That is not consistent with editing norms on Wikipedia. Consensus was firmly against removing the content when you first objected on the talk page, then you took it to another forum. Even then, editors were substantially in favor of retaining the material, especially after discounting non-policy arguments and factoring in comments from editors who wanted to see more content in the body of the article first. - MrX 🖋 20:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

To be frank, this is "new" material, it is nowhere close to "long-standing" material that is being challenged to be removed (but that would be also a case under ONUS too if it were long-standing material and one was seeking its removal under dispute). The default position, as soon as there was a reasonable challenge, was to remove it for the time being and per ONUS wait for consensus to add it back in. It is some bludgeoning to say "oh, there's all this consensus to have it in, and now your complaints to remove are the ONUS.", not with as little time as there has been for this information's inclusion. (And again, I'm saying this from the fact I'd support this information being the lede, but rather see it added with a proper consensus behind it, not forced into place like this.)--Masem (t) 21:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

MrX, as you know, there were several substantive errors in your chart. And you made no mention of "discounting non-policy arguments" until now. Which arguments are you referring to exactly? petrarchan47คุก 22:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

After you Petrarchan47. Where are the "several substantive errors" in my chart (table)? I want to make sure I correct those straight away. - MrX 🖋 23:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Why would you not jump at the opportunity to share your findings? I know that you would not make a false claim at a noticeboard because such a thing destroys an editor's credibility, so please share your work. As for your mistakes, I'll remind you again that you summarized my "too soon for the lede" as 'unclear' by ignoring BPLN. Others have taken issue with your assessment, but you don't need to make corrections as they're being made for you. This requirement that I should answer your question before you'll reply to mine seems disingenuous, to be honest, since you are presumably reading the talk page where all of this is laid out clearly. petrarchan47คุก 01:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, I can't imagine why. Former campaign managers are indicted for crimes all the time. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• The procedural arguments from the blocking editors are obviously just a tactic. Take a look at who the editors are who are objecting to the inclusion in the lede, and you'll see that their political PoV is the driving force here, not Wiki policy. That we're not supposed to acknowledge that reality for some reason is extremely bizarre to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Takes one to know one? PackMecEng (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The "blocking" argument to omit it from the lede is 100% fair based on BLP policy. The fact is appropriately covered in the body, and it is a very valid question about if it is lede worthy, as we normally don't push other types of initial arrests/indictments to the lede and instead wait for actual convictions. Bad faith to be calling this a political push. --Masem (t) 23:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Sure, Masem, sure, whatever you say -- but you do know that everyone can see what the Emperor is wearing, don't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I am aware that in the talk page discussion, in the handy table there, there are some editors listed in the "opposed to lede" that are regularly associated with a viewpoint that would be seen as in alignment with Bannen here (which is not actionable on its own). But I think this overall is an example of the longstanding problem I've talked too far at length on that we have too many editors on the other viewpoint side that just want to make articles about BLP with extreme right-leaning ideologies that are often criticized by the press as laundry lists of every little wrong thing that happens to them that we can document to mainstream RSes, which is not neutral nor impartial either. It's just that in this specific case w/ Bannen's indictment on federal fraud, I have to personally agree this is far different than yet another label-strewn attack piece from the media, but that's my opinion. Instead, there's was a dispute about including it in the lede, it is a proper BLP dispute for new material, and so there should be a proper closure. Then if challenged later, you can point to that discussion and restore it without question. That's why having those types of discussions helps, you document where these things are decided so that editors (new and old) don't come back around months later to try to remove or the like. --Masem (t) 15:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not involved but I agree with Masem, both in that I personally think it's lead-worthy and that I think we have a process for this sort of situation that should be followed. The first time it was reverted, it should have stayed out until there was consensus for its inclusion. It shouldn't be reinstated while an RFC or talk page discussion is ongoing; wait for it to be closed. It's disappointing to see so many experienced editors ignoring WP:V (specifically WP:ONUS) and engaging in a battleground approach, including in this thread. Lev!vich 23:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way this is also happening over at Aziz Ansari. Would some uninvolved admins be able to help out and provide more direct assistance or guidance? Additionally, I reject the assertions above that you don't need to follow ONUS if the material is contrary to your POV. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I would have hoped this discussion made it clear that we need to have consensus for inclusion first. The talk page doesn't agree there is consensus and you as an involved editor shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide it has been reached. If you feel it has and feel those who disagree are stonewalling then get an independent review. For example, you can start a RfC and that can establish the consensus upon it's closing. Stop adding the content just because you think others are wrong. Springee (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Masem and Levivich that this is leadworthy content and that people who want to add it to the lead should be patient. --JBL (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This discussion about this inclusion has been beaten into the ground on the article talk page. After almost a week of edit warring over whether to include a short mention in the lead of the article of Steve Bannon's legal woes, there is a clear consensus that a short mention in the lead is adequately supported by the majority of editors. Almost all the editors involved in the discussion agree with this except for User:Springee. Can an uninvolved administrator from this board review the discussion and close it? At this point, it has turned into a time wasting exercise with what should have been a straightforward WP:BRD discussion which has spilled over into several article noticeboards. Any assistance would be appreciated. Also, Springee keeps reverting the same edits over and over and at this point they are way beyond the 1RR restriction (as well as 3RR). Thanks for any help. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Octoberwoodland: please consider the above discussion and self revert. As an involved editor you should not self declare consensus. Springee (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please follow WP:BRD and stop making up your own rules as you go. I have asked for closure, so hopefully this stonewalling exercise will get fixed. We are at this impasse because you refuse to follow the rules. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you should follow BRD as well as NOCON. I reverted the content when it was first added. Thus we are past B and R. The content should have never been restored until D reached a consensus. The talk page has not agreed that a consensus has been reached despite many voices on both sides. The content was boldly added to the lead. It was reverted. Per the discussion above it should have never been added back until a consensus was established. Currently the involved parties don't agree on consensus so the correct thing for you to get the material in the article is have an involved party decide the issue. For example a RfC closed by an involved editor. If you are going to come here and accuse me of failing to follow procedures, consider that you have restored this material more than once against NOCON. Perhaps it's time to self revert then see if a compromise text could be acceptable via a talk page discussion instead of edit warring. Striking based on OWL's self revert.Springee (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's not an excuse for you to violate 1RR/3RR on the article. If another editor comes along and adds content, it's not your place to keep reverting over and over in order to enshrine your views in the article. All of us, me included need to constantly work on improving our social skills. Discuss your concerns and if you are overruled by other editors, graciously accept it and move on. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is from the top those who have restored the edit are the ones who have failed edicate and policy. When the edit was challenged the first thing that should have happened is those who want inclusion should have started a talk page discussion (see ONUS). Without the edit warring I'm sure both sides would find it easier to talk things out and hopefully find a compromise text that could get consensus. The problem now is we have a lot of voices on both sides and we can't agree even if we have a consensus. If we can't agree then neither side should self declare a consensus has or has not been reached. In a case where we can't agree a consensus has been reached we have procedures for establishing if a consensus exists. One option would be a RfC. Another would be trying to find a compromise text. By measure of head count I would agree that we are on the consensus/no-consensus line. My honest opinion is this is as much an editorial judgement as anything. I were uninvolved I would look at the opinions of the editors who aren't "the usual suspects" and see if they favor inclusion by a sufficient margin to say consensus is established. However, as an involved editor that call is not mine to make. Springee (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No. The problem is that you first falsely invoked WP:BLPCRIME despite the fact that you knew it didn't say what you were claiming it said (you knew this, because you tried to employ exactly the same tactic previously and were warned about it). When that didn't work out you claimed it shouldn't be in the lede because there wasn't enough content in the body. But when editors tried to expand the relevant section you got busy trying to remove or justify the removal of that expansion. When you got called out on that you then started screaming "NO CONSENSUS!" as a justification for your reverts. That's not actually a justification. It's an excuse. A bad excuse. When obvious consensus against you developed, you began yelling "ONUS!" and inventing ridiculously absurd thresholds for inclusion not justified by policy and continued to edit war on that basis. I honestly cannot find a single point in this entire discussion where you appear to be acting in good faith. You simply moved from one disingenuous excuse to another. Volunteer Marek 05:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

And this (quote) is a direct example of the kind of stonewalling and abuse of policy by User:Springee that I'm talking about: "and we can't agree even if we have a consensus". Apparently now it's not enough to have CONSENSUS we also have to have CONSENSUS THAT WE HAVE CONSENSUS, or else Springee gets to do whatever they want with the article. OF COURSE some of the people who are against consensus will argue - endlessly, tendentiously - that "there's no consensus". Right now we have almost 30 editors for including, about half as many for excluding. That's consensus any way you slice it. And yes, I know, not a vote and all but that's pretty overwhelming and honestly, if there's weak arguments which need to be discounted it's very much on the exclude side. But we can't go with the consensus because Springee has personally decided that to get consensus we need unanimity on the fact that there is in fact consensus effectively giving themselves veto power. Oh, and they also decided that it's not consensus unless more than 70% of the editors agree - a ridiculous threshold not based in any policy that they obviously pulled out of their butt. Either way, Springee gets to decide what happens. This is a situation where there is a small minority of editors who are causing trouble by refusing to abide by Wikipedia policies and consensus. That's it. That's all there is to this. Volunteer Marek 08:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

You are rehashing arguments that have already been addressed. My original edit summary had two reasons for removal, BLPCRIME and WEIGHT (not stated). You reverted claiming BLPCRIME didn't apply but failed to address weight and contrary to BRD you didn't go to the talk page before reverting. You mention my incorrect use of BLPCRIME as if this were some sort of bad faith yet deliberate intent to mislead. Sorry, that is bad faith on your part. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has forgotten that BLPCRIME has limitations. Note that the moment we went to the talk page the core of my argument was not BLPCRIME. At the time you reverted my original removal you couldn't claim CONESNSUS because there was no discussion. When the text was removed the second time by a different editor that should have been the end until consensus was established. You are a long time editor and you should know that if text is challenged you need to go to discuss next. [Edit: add signature] Springee (talk) 12:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I have brought this up before, but part of the problem is that WP:ONUS conflicts with our current policy and practice when it comes to no-consensus outcomes. ONUS says that you need consensus to include disputed material (which means that if someone objects to long-standing text, it would in theory be removed unless a consensus can be demonstrated to keep it), whereas WP:RFC, WP:PRESERVE, and pretty much all our practice regarding intractable disputes is that the existing text remains if there is no consensus to remove it. This is something that needs to eventually be resolved on a policy level. My feeling is that there is a degree of "implied" consensus for longstanding text that varies depending on how trafficked and heavily-edited the article - that is, every edit that keeps a particular change is a light, slight endorsement of it, and with enough of those it is eventually presumed to have consensus and therefore requires demonstrated consensus to remove; whereas longstanding text on an obscure page nobody sees (or text which is tucked away somewhere easily-missed and which plainly contradicts the main thrust of the article) probably doesn't have the same presumed consensus. I feel WP:ONUS should mention something like this. And yes I'm aware that this doesn't directly relate to the dispute at hand but it needs to be resolved dammit. I keep seeing people going "well, you need consensus to keep this in the article per WP:ONUS!" and someone else going "no, it's longstanding and no-consensus outcomes default to longstanding text, so you need consensus to remove it" and the policy seems to support them both.--Aquillion (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• I find it exceptionally disingenuous for an editor who has been here for 15 years to characterize a talk page discussion involving some two dozen editors as "an issue of a couple editors stone walling and obfuscating and wikilawyering". GMG^talk 14:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest that our work here will become a lot quieter if every editor on both sides of the dispute referenced above was gently but firmly topic-banned from topics related to the 2020 United States presidential election, broadly construed, for 75 days. BD2412 T 01:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion and will break the logjam. I will avoid all articles from the 2020 presidential election for the next 75 days. Now you can enforce it on the rest of the editors involved. I don't really care which articles I work on. I spend most of my time working on less contentious articles, and try to avoid these types of disputes. There are a lot of articles needing improvement and contentious editing is something to avoid on this site. Octoberwoodland (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

If there is a consensus for it, I'll enforce it. Not 24/7, of course, but I won't shy from it. In my experience, the editors involved will find quite a burden lifted from their shoulders, not to have to deal with this topic. BD2412 T 03:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a absurd proposal. We don't ban people "to make things quite". That's stupid. We don't ban people when they've done nothing wrong. There might very well be a couple editors here who deserve a ban - for stonewalling and misrepresenting policy in bad faith. But why the hell should other people get bans? The proposal is prima facie ridiculous. Stop waving that admin gun in our faces. Volunteer Marek 04:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

And to add to the above. It might come quite as a shock to you, but the purpose of bans is NOT to make admin lives easier or shield admins from being annoyed by existence of disputes. Bans aren't here cuz you don't feel like doing your job and actually evaluating the nature of the dispute. We have bans so that we can ensure that our article CONTENT satisfies our CONTENT standards and CONTENT policies. This is WP:NOTAFORUM and you don't get to treat it as such (unless of course someone is violating NOTAFORUM). If you think otherwise you have no business being an admin. Did I mention that this is about CONTENT and not providing some of you with the thrills and highs of banning people? Volunteer Marek 04:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

BTW, if this proposal was meant sarcastically (I honestly can't tell), my apologies ahead of time. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no expectation that this proposal will actually be adopted; however, we are going to end up with the same set of editors with strong feelings about the topic getting into the same sets of disputes, with increasing acerbity, for the next two-and-a-half months. As I have suggested, this would be a positive burden off the shoulders of everyone listed. BD2412 T 04:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I can decide whether I want this "burden" getting "lifted" off my shoulders myself, thank you very much. Volunteer Marek 04:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be an easier decision to make if you knew that it would also be "lifted" from the shoulders of all the regularly contentious editors in the area. BD2412 T 04:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

No, not really. First, as would be obvious if you actually looked at the dispute itself, there are FAR MORE editors who support including this info than there are those who oppose it. And THAT is the real issue - there actually is a consensus here but a couple of editors (User:Springee, User:Atsme etc) decided they're gonna stonewall this consensus by making novel (mis)interpretations of policy or derailing discussion (and as far as one of these goes, they have a history of doing this and have been topic banned because of it previously). So if you "ban all sides" you'd be banning far more people from one side than the other ... precisely because there IS consensus on this issue. This makes absolutely no sense.

Second, what do you think happens when you "ban all sides"? There's no one left to actually improve the article. Usually a flood of socks pops up and since they weren't covered by the original ban, run amok. Either way, the article/topic area usually goes to shit.

Third, it's just a simple matter of fairness. Why exactly should editors be banned when they did nothing wrong? Cuz an admin feels like it? You are seriously proposing to ban editors only because they participated in a discussion. Not because they broke 3RR. Not because they were INCIVIL. Not because they violated WP:RS or whatever. But because they commented in a discussion in a good faith exactly like they're expected to. THAT is why this proposal is just ridiculous. Volunteer Marek 04:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I would not be upset if all election related articles were locked until after the election. PackMecEng (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: I proposed exactly that months ago, and it was soundly rejected.

@Volunteer Marek: If you believe that there is a specific subset of editors who are acting improperly with respect to these articles, name them and provide the evidence to support administrative action specific to those editors. I see a lot of repeat-player editors on both sides of every dispute quickly devolving to personal invective. I would, in fact, prefer to lock the articles until after the election, and only allow substantive edits (e.g., not typo fixes) agreed to by a strong consensus. BD2412 T 05:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

OF COURSE there are disputes. The topic is intrinsically controversial. How in the world that justifies just giving up and locking it up just so that admins avoid being annoyed by existence of disputes is beyond me. To reiterate. The purpose of admin tools isn't to make your life easier, it's to ensure quality content. Volunteer Marek 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been here since 2005. Everything in the immediate area goes to pot during the election cycle, and then gets restored to some semblance of normalcy after that dust has settled. Too many editors suffer under the rather grandiose delusion that Wikipedia articles will persuade some number of voters sufficient to justify the investment in pushing the articles in a certain direction. The best we can do is minimize that conduct until the fever breaks, and then get back to substantive changes. In other words, maintain the existing level of quality, rather than letting it slide, and then make the articles current to the post-election reality. However, I repeat my invitation for you to name and provide the diffs for specific editors whose conduct indicates that they should not be editing these articles. BD2412 T 05:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been here since 2005 too. And if we're talking the quality of ARTICLE CONTENT then no, everything does not "go to pot". As long as a sufficient number of editors remain engaged (editors that you wish to ban for no reason btw) then the content stays good, and in fact, improves since there's a lot to take care. These editors also take care of all the numerous fly-by-night-throw-away sockpuppet accounts and trolls that inundate these articles or even organized brigading from external websites like reddit or 4chan. Now, what does happen is that DISPUTES do tend to flare up during this time. I guess if you're an admin it's easy to confuse "disputes flare up" with "article content gets worse" but it's actually not the same thing at all. It's actually a distinctive aspect of some admins (wrong headed) mentality that to them "bad = people arguing and causing headaches for admins" rather than "bad = article content is crap". But that's a problem with those admins and that mentality. Not with the people who actually do the hard work of ensuring our articles follow reliable sources and npov. Why exactly do you want to ban them? Cuz they annoy you? Volunteer Marek 05:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Our talk pages are as open for the public to see as our articles. Endless vitriolic bickering on those pages affects our reputation (and is even sometimes reported in the media). If the regular bickerers are kicked out for the season, I would not expect them to be replaced by another cohort of bickerers; I would expect a different set of level-headed editors to step in at that point. BD2412 T 05:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, right, these magical "level-headed editors" will just materialize out of the internet ether once you've banned all the regulars for no reason. Makes perfect sense. I mean, you can "expect" something to happen but you know, people "expect" to win the lottery too and usually they don't. Also, it's kind of telling that you think that the discussions on the talk page are more important than the actual encyclopedic content of the article itself. The whole freakin' point of the talk pages are for people to work through the disputes. You want to ban people for doing exactly what they're suppose to do. ... ... because it annoys you or something. Volunteer Marek 08:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the summary for Springee. I also want to point out that Springee has not made ANY substantive contribution directly to the article other than to continuously revert the disputed content as described in these diffs. He is acting almost like a Single Purpose Account to remove any derogatory information from the article lead. Normally, editors add substantive content to an article and interact with each other on the talk page. Although Springee has been active on talk pages, with regard to this article all of his edits have been to censure the same content, but he has not added anything prior to or following the indictment of Steve Bannon. See User:Springee - violation of 1RR/3RR [35][36][37][38] Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

None of those violate 1RR as all are more than 24hr apart. Additionally, any restoration of the text when it was clear the material was in dispute was a violation of NOCON. As far as I can tell, no editor has violated 1RR. If you want to expand the definition to reverts in more than 24hr then several have. I have made some other material removals from the article, not just removals of the disputed text per NOCON. If your intent is to show that lots of people have been behaving badly, well I won't argue that. Lot's of accusations of stonewalling as well as violating ONUS. This would all be much easier if we let the discussion process play out (it largely seems to have) and then used an independent closing of the discussion. As I've said more than once, the best option at this point is probably a RfC and/or suggestions of compromise text. Springee (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• I get what you're saying, but here's why it wouldn't work. While the editors in question (including myself, I suppose, though in this case I haven't done much more than weigh in once on the request when it was brought to WP:RSN) are obviously the names that come up the most for disputes in that topic area, they're not the only or even the main source of problems; the divide exists in reality, not just on Wikipedia, and is therefore going to affect anyone with a strong interest in the topic area. AP2 articles in particular attract a ton of edits from new, inexperienced, or and unregistered users that are generally far worse than anything an experienced editor would propose. As frustrating as the more experienced editors in those topic areas can be, they are still reasonably good at reaching consensus and at recognizing what policy requires (the amount of stuff you don't see because everyone involved quickly recognizes what's necessary is far larger than the disputes that blow up.) If you remove everyone experienced, the disputes will still happen, they will just happen between editors who are less-familiar with Wikipedia policies, especially as they apply to the sorts of disputes that come up in AP2; this will lead to more disruption overall. Beyond that, while having things dragged to WP:AN or wherever can be annoying to editors here who don't want to hear about AP2 disputes, the fact is that these are serious, probably inevitable disputes (reflecting divides in the real world and, therefore, among the sources) which have to be resolved. Removing everyone who brings them to venues like this will make things quieter for you, yes, but it will make the articles worse - these are the sorts of things our noticeboards exist to resolve, after all, so they should be getting brought here. Replacing the editors in AP2 with less experienced ones won't make the disputes go away, it will just mean they're less likely to get taken to a venue where outside opinions can be gathered and, therefore, less likely to be resolved. It's also worth taking a look at the studies mentioned on Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#Analyses - generally speaking, as frustrating as experienced AP2 editors can be, there is evidence that editors tend to at least edit from a more neutral point of view as time passes and that pages that have large numbers of such experienced editors working on them tend towards neutrality. Yes, the disputes and sausage-making can get ugly sometimes, but the end results on high-traffic, high-controversy articles is generally good - our article on eg. Donald Trump might have a lot of disputes, and some people might disagree with specific details, but the article itself is high-quality overall. Our system ultimately works. If you don't like the disputes it produces along the way, just tune them out. --Aquillion (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is the listing of all editors involved in this dispute. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Finally a good use for that list! PackMecEng (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment tally: Federal grand jury indictment in the lead

Support	Oppose	Ambiguous or Neutral
Captain Calm	Springee	Coffee
Activist	Drmies	Jim.henderson
Volunteer Marek	GreenMeansGo	Zaereth
MrX	Atsme	GiantSnowman
Calidum	Amakuru
SPECIFICO	Bus stop
Beyond My Ken	Jauerback
Neutrality	valereee
MastCell	Niteshift36
soibangla	MONGO
K.e.coffman	Alanscottwalker
Octoberwoodland	Maineartists
Nat Gertler	PackMecEng
Nomoskedasticity	Petrarchan47
Gbear605	Dumuzid
Jayron32	AIRcorn
Masem	Jweiss11
Aquillion	Shinealittlelight
Muboshgu
Bastun
TFD
Vadder
starship.paint
Hobit
Ravensfire
Fearless lede'r
John Broughton
Citing
hako9
29	18	4

Really? On AN, we are going to list the names of people who commented at BLPN on edits and content? How obnoxious being brought up at AN for doing our best at editor's work examining content and policy for making consensus. My editing position has nothing to do with my politics, and I don't generally edit in the area. ONUS is clear though per Masem, Levitch, JBL etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Editors will disagree about whether this will work, so why not put it to the test? Try it for two weeks, see if it makes a difference. Lev!vich 12:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

• Only to comment on something that I think is relevant that VM said above that I found to be an issue in these types of issues: I guess if you're an admin it's easy to confuse "disputes flare up" with "article content gets worse" but it's actually not the same thing at all. It's actually a distinctive aspect of some admins (wrong headed) mentality that to them "bad = people arguing and causing headaches for admins" rather than "bad = article content is crap". But that's a problem with those admins and that mentality. Not with the people who actually do the hard work of ensuring our articles follow reliable sources and npov. Remember that while accurate articles on WP is one thing, minimizing disruption in the open wiki process is another goal. Editors insisting they are being right by following reliable sources and NPOV, but not following established the processes are just as problematic to admins as those that introduce bad content with no sources or that is POV-ladened. And in the AP2 area, this had/had gotten a bit out of hand with the experienced editors that should know better. Part of it I believe is an emotional drive, a loathing that is hard to stop due to current events around the US Presidency and right of the extreme right, which I can't fault editors for having, but its manifesting itself worse on WP in terms of insisting on being "right" in these types of discussions. We need more editors to step back, look at the larger picture, keep in mind we're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper and not every immediate incident needs to be reported in our articles nor do our articles need to be doing the work of the news media - we should be significantly lagging behind that coverage when it comes to controversial material. Bunch of other points around this aspect that editors on all sides of the general AP2 debate simply need to keep in mind, but I think more of the weight of this is on the experienced ones who should know better here. --Masem (t) 13:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
• No. If admins want to start being more liberal with their application of DS for cause (and they're willing to weather the inevitable storm that will come with doing so), that's one thing. But banning the people who know the material best for volunteering their time to try to sort out a difficult matter despite a subset misbehaving is crazy talk. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Contested page move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A page was created at Sexual slavery in Islam. An edit war broke out and the page got move protected by me but by then it was at Concubinage in Islam. There has been a discussion but as yet no consensus has been forthcoming. They are going to seek wider discussion but where should the page be in the meantime. Should it remain as Concubinage in Islam or should the original title be returned to, similar to no consensus in an AfD. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The article was created Sexual slavery in Islam but was moved to Concubinage in Islam on May 20. At the time 3 people (Vice regent, SharabSalam and an IP) supported the move and one (Mcphurphy) opposed it. Between May 21 and June 28, the article name remained stable at Concubinage in Islam and there was no discussion on the name during that time. A move war broke out on June 28 and CambridgeBayWeather move protected it on July 1.

In the latest round of discussion (Talk:Concubinage_in_Islam#General_discussion) 6 users (AhmadF.Cheema, Mhhossein, HaEr48, Firman.Nst, Karaeng Matoaya) and an IP preferred the current title whereas 3 users (Grufo, Mcphurphy and Vishnu Sahib) opposed it. There is overwhelming evidence that "Concubinage" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME in reliable sources (see this section and this section and this comment). I don't see the users preferring the "Sexual slavery" title addressing this evidence.VR _talk 03:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, there is no reason for propaganda here, the discussion on this board is not about what you consider “overwhelming evidence” in favor of your disputed renaming of the page – there is an appropriate discussion in the Talk Page for that. This discussion is simply about whether the disputed renaming should remain as the official name of the page until the dispute is over. --Grufo (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

At the time the article was renamed 3 people supported it and only one opposed it. Further opposition to the name change came more than a month later.VR _talk 13:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Most discussions begin with few editors involved. But since a renaming had been done without consensus and there was already an edit war, it should have been your duty (both sides) to try and involve as many other editors as possible in the discussion, possibly avoiding WP:CANVASS and using instead public boards for advertising the dispute. You keep talking here about how the page should be called or how the discussion is going according to you, but this discussion is not about solving the dispute, this discussion is about how the page should be named until the dispute is over. By the way, the editors who opposed the renaming are at least six plus one IP address as far as I could count, not three (#1 #2, #3, #4 #5, #6, #7) --Grufo (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion here shows an overwhelming support for the name change to Sexual Slavery in Islam by several editors. There has been a blatant disregard of WP:Consensus by User:Vice regent who keeps citing one sided sources and and an out-dated poll for article merger which was conducted in a haste without much community involvement. Therefore, the best solution is to change the article's name to the original stable version until the forthcoming consensus. Mingling2 (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the IP. Even Grufo does not claim there is an "overwhelming consensus" for the name change now. There was not much editor involvement back then as the page had been recently created [39]. The current title was even stable for around a month with the main disputer claiming they went on a break for a medical emergency. Plus, a poll back then can't really be outdated if were discussing the past. There was never any merger as far as I can tell. Finally, keep in mind that there were separate disputes back then which were however addressed together sometimes. I agree that this is not the place to discuss the "propaganda"/arguments here but this seems to be a concern with "The Wrong Version" being protected. 119.155.0.8 (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

“Even Grufo does not claim there is an "overwhelming consensus" for the name change now”: I “claimed” (in the appropriate Talk Page, not here) that there is not enough consensus for allowing the disputed renaming (from the original title “Sexual slavery in Islam” to the current title “Concubinage in Islam”). There have never been any disputes against the original title “Sexual slavery in Islam”, only one user (Vice regent) left a message against it in the Talk Page and renamed the page to “Concubinage in Islam” 15 minutes later. From that moment the dispute about Vice regent's renaming began almost immediately. --Grufo (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@119.155.0.8 The current title has never been stable. The renaming was done quickly without much community consensus and it has been contested since than. And as Grufo pointed out 8 editors have opposed this move on the talk page including me. There remains no reason why the article name shouldn't be "Sexual slavery in Islam". Mingling2 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

My second sentence was a response to Mingling2. The dispute about much in the article began almost immediately as soon as it was created without external input (just check the edit balance). The actual status quo would almost be a blank page. We've been active on the page for months while you joined just a few days ago. If we didn't focus particularly on the name-change, it was because we were having a three way discussion (four-way including Eperotron and subtracting socks) on multiple issues. I'd be wary about the drive-by editors like the obvious sock above (Mingling2 not Grufo, I'll apologize later if I'm wrong) claiming a consensus of 3/6/8/5000/maybe more in their favor, and 3/2/1/0/maybe less than that, against. As I said this is an issue of the "Wrong version(tm)" being protected... 119.155.0.8 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

“We've been active on the page for months while you joined just a few days ago”: It does not matter for how long you have been discussing using wrong arguments, they won't become right arguments automatically after a certain amount of months. P.S. Could you please pay more attention to the indentation of your messages? It is not clear who you are responding to. --Grufo (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• @CambridgeBayWeather: I don't have time to find the policy page, but I believe the typical course in a move war is to place the page at the last stable title pending discussion. If no stable title exists then I think the page is typically placed at whatever title the page was created at. I'd also suggest telling participants to focus on where the article should be rather than wasting effort arguing about its temporary location which only prolongs the dispute. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content on Blind Faith (band) Page

Not the place for this discussion. And while WP:NOTCENSORED is one of the most abused policies there is, this is the sort of situation it's intended for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The album cover of Blind Faith’s eponymous debut album has a picture of a topless 11-year old girl. Yes, it was on the original album cover, but it’s PEDOPHILIA. There’s no reason for this heinous album picture to be reposted on this website. It needs to be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.14.63 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

John from Idegon unblock request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

John from Idegon has posted an unblock request. See User talk:John from Idegon#Unblock request — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. Valuable contributor who had a misstep and is taking steps to correct. (cross post from user talk) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock. We can all go through bad patches. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Unblock. The unblock request itself wasn't great, but the reply to Cullen seems genuine, and John will of course know what is likely to happen should such incidents reoccur. Black Kite (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock. John is a big plus for the encyclopedia. He sometimes gets a bit testy. I pledge to do my best to mention this to him, when I observe it. Jacona (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I'm undecided abut block/unblock. Generally John is a positive to the project, and I'd like to see him remain and given another shot. But this is not a new problem - serious incivility issues from John go back years, as does a lack of recognition that it is a problem (which is again reflected in his unblock request). My biggest concern isn't that John doesn't mean well, or that he won't fully intend to address the problems, but simply whether or not he can recognise where the line is in order to change his behaviour. I expect this to end up with an unblock, and as such I really hope it works, but I'm concerned. - Bilby (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support unblock - We all have bad days here, John's a much valued contributor here and IMHO should be unblocked. –Davey2010^Talk 12:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Confused Not sure why we're discussing this here. This block is a normal block imposed by a single administrator, not a ban, and I don't see a pressing need for community consensus to unblock. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The indef block happened as a result of a community discussion at AN, which seems to be taken these days as meaning a community ban - though I'm really not sure what counts as a ban and what doesn't these days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, fair enough - since the thread was closed by Ivanvector's block rather than community consensus and the block log doesn't mention a community ban, I wouldn't consider that to be a CBAN. If people want to have the discussion, I'm not going to stop them, but this seems like excessive burro-cracy. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I too am confused. (whistles loudly) Heh! Ivanvector! We're over here! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused most of the time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• I blame COVID19. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

  Even pandemics have an upside. I'm often confused and now I have a great scapegoat.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• As we have a parallel discussion on his talk, should we close this and move these there? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please remove my user rights

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello there, could someone please remove all my user rights? I'm retiring. Thank you! The creeper2007^{Talk! Be well, stay safe} 05:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The creeper2007, This kind of request is typically denied. If you don't want to edit here, just don't. If you want to make it so that you can't, change your email address to something else, change your password to something that you won't remember, and then delete the email account. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If the person wants their user rights to be removed, but wants to keep the account open in case they decide to return, what's wrong with that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The only user rights this person has is extended confirmed, which is a bit pointless in removing. If they had some more advanced perms I'd agree with you. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• The creeper2007, if you want an administrator to disallow you from editing further on Wikipedia, then you can request a WP:SELFBLOCK for an enforced wiki-break of whatever length. Please click that link to learn how to do that and you will find a list of administrators willing to do that. If there are things that have made you unhappy about Wikipedia, you might also want to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE for advice or feedback. Softlavender (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
• I interpreted the request as concerning WP:RIGHTS and have removed "pending changes reviewer". I don't see a request for a block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Although the literal request was removal of rights, it seems clear that the request was motivated by a comment on their talk page:

So, after being denied rollback twice and starting to get kicked from irc(was trying to request oversight) I am feeling like that the community is no longer appreciating my efforts on wikipedia and are considering me as a hassle to deal with.

• I'm not active in IRC, and not naïve enough to take any claim on face value, but if someone literally was kicked out of IRC for requesting oversight, something is wrong. Does anyone know more about this issue to know whether there is merit to the complaint? If so, some action may be warranted (understanding that IRC is sort of not really Wikipedia). The editor also presumably feels that the two rejections for rollback rights weren't warranted. I wasn't involved in either one of those requests. Is it worth checking to see if there is any merit to the concern? This community has a less than stellar record at dealing with relatively new editors, and those lessons to be learned, perhaps we should investigate, rather than simply saying goodbye.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Here is the first rejection for rollback and here is the second rejection for rollback. First one is clear and obvious that they were too new; second one involved admin discussion before declining. The IRC comment was first posted on their page on Aug. 5. only (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

    Only, Thanks for those links. We've all seen situations where brand-new editors are chomping at the bit and anxious to contribute. It is always a delicate balancing act to encourage such editors to contribute positively, and give them the tools to help address problems without giving them tools prematurely. While we don't expect perfection, rollback is a powerful tool, in using it correctly 95% of the time is not close to good enough. I personally cringe whenever I use rollback in a copyright situation, knowing how dispiriting it must be to see hours of work demolished. For that reason, the community likes to make sure that it sees a solid track record before granting this right. The first request was clearly premature, in the second request was not denied cavalierly, it was the result of calm deliberation. While I understand the disappointment of an editor who feels that the denial was based upon a single incident, it looks to me like they were valid signs of concern, which could easily be addressed over time. I'm sorry that @The creeper2007: feels that the community is not appreciating their efforts, but I see specific thanks for all the hard work, and clear indications that more experience may well lead to granting of the right. I'd like to know more about the IRC incident, if the decision to leave was largely motivated by the failure to grant rollback, I'm confident that the community made the right decision to ask for more experience. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

    I've pulled my IRC logs from the past couple of months and have reviewed two channels: #wikipedia-en (general open discussion channel) and #wikipedia-en-revdel (revdel/oversight request channel)

    • For #-en, there were several cases where they used the "!oversight" and "!admin" pings (which most admins will receive a notification for). I lost my temper with them on 14 July for using the !admin ping for an AIV request which had sat for five minutes without action. They displayed a strong fixation on getting rollback rights, I will note that I am INVOLVED here since I denied their request for rollback permissions. They were last in-channel on 5 August, and I do not see any kicks or bans applied to them.
    • For #-revdel, I see the_creeper2007 going in and out of the channel (by which I mean they join the channel and then their client disconnects) frequently over the course of several days in mid-July. I asked them on 13 July if they needed something, which never got a response, and they stopped idling in the channel on or around 14 July. That is the only interaction my logs show, and I do not see any cases of them speaking in the channel, much less requesting oversight. I also note for non-IRC-goers that non-admins are explicitly prohibited from idling in the #-revdel channel. Again, no kicks or bans. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

      GeneralNotability, Thanks for doing that research. My hope had been that a promising new editor had been treated unfairly, and addressing those issues might keep the editor engaged. That doesn't appear to be the case. I will leave this open for a few more minutes but I'm inclined to reclose. Not everyone is cut out for Wikipedia. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate user page

BaldiBasicsFan has a section about users he hates which seems like a bad idea. I'm also suspicious that he is a sockpuppet of TheImmortalKitten but I don't have enough evidence to open an CU request. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• That user page section also contained personal information in violation of Outing policy. It's now been removed and suppressed by Oversight. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

G6 backlog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There are 20 candidates for speedy deletion per criterion G6, at Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion. One page has been tagged for over 3 days. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am unafraid to dive into patrolling CSDs but tend to avoid G6s. I find, in most cases, it's very time consuming to figure out if a nomination is actually uncontroversial. Are there any good essays on reviewing G6s because maybe I'm just overthinking things? Or alternatively any good advice out there for experienced sysops about how to patrol G6? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I also find pages in Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion to consistently be the least uncontroversial speedy candidates, with the sole exception of empty dated maintenance categories. It's largely a mix of 1) stealthy bypasses of WP:Requested moves that'll move the angry opposition onto your talkpage instead of the article's; 2) another WP:ANRFC for TFD closures; and 3) a dumping ground for things that aren't listed in the speedy deletion criteria that the tagger thinks should be deleted but can't be bothered taking to AFD or MFD or wherever. I avoid it like the plague. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason, by contrast, usually does have legitimate speedy requests in it, mostly tagged by people too inexperienced at enwiki to play the Twinkle-based pick-a-vaguely-similar-sounding-criterion game. —Cryptic 06:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we go to VPP and propose deprecating G6?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Only if you plan on also creating some form of "T5" deletion to use on templates being deleted following a TFD. 90% of my non-copyvio deletions are G6s that are a result of such discussions. Primefac (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have also found it useful when individuals create articles in the template (or other similarly incorrect) namespaces, for example Template:No Sleep 'til Sudbury: Adventures in 80s Hard Rock and Metal Deconstruction. Agent00x (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Like all of the criteria, if you think a G6 nomination is uncontroversial then go ahead and delete, and if not then decline it. Or if you don't have the time or understanding to decide, leave it for someone else. That's how I do them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Page History Merge Request: Page was moved, then redirected page was copy/pasted back to old page, so no history exists

Genesis Rabbah was moved to Genesis Rabba and then the redirect was "moved" back, but it appears to have been moved via copy/paste so page edit history seems to be gone. Is there a way to get it back via a merge? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Give me a minute, I'm on it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, the only change since the copy/paste move was to add "h" to "Rabba" in the opening sentence. So, I have deleted the new copy/paste Genesis Rabbah, reverted the old Genesis Rabba to being a full article, added the "h", and then moved it the proper way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, thanks. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 13:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Range block

Please could an admin knowledgeable about range blocks consider blocking the dynamic IP who is vandalising Jim Ladd. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Since the IPs have only disrupted that article, a protection seems easier. I've semi-protected for six months, escalating from previous protections. Seems to be a vandalism magnet, that article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

More than just that article. The edits going back to the start of August, anyway, appear to be the same person.

The range block calculator, as linked from the header of Special:Block, is handy for this sort of request. In this particular case, so is WP:/64. —Cryptic 12:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: My inclination would be to use a range block for as long as is consistent with policy (3 months?), because this user has disrupted dozens of articles over the last twelve months, and I feel blocking the vandal is better than protecting an article when others have not been vandalising it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay, well we can do that as well, but in the specific case of Jim Ladd, I can't find a good faith edit from an IP that wasn't reverted for the last two years, so that deserves special attention. And, are we looking at the same set of contributions? The problem with the range suggested by Cryptic is that there doesn't seem to be enough bad faith edits and too much collateral - for example, this looks like a good faith edit, as does this one. There's been no further vandalism on Curtis Mayfield for two days, so I think protection / blocking on that alone is stale. In summarise, I don't think a range block is required right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Close challenge

User:Kraose, a user with just over 1K edits, recently closed a highly-contentious RfC on The People's of Mujahedin of Iran talk page. Kraose also previously participated in another very contentious ANI report ("Iranian opposition articles") about POV pushing in this same article.

I have asked Kraose to consider undoing their close based on WP:BADNAC, but they appear to be currently absent from Wikipedia. I would kindly request for an admin to review this and hopefully allow an experienced and uninvolved closer to close that RfC. Thank you. Alex-h (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

*Keep the close as is BadNac doesn't apply here. The close well done correctly. Yes there are 10 yes to 6 no votes, however, the yes votes offer no real policy while the no's do. Further, this RFC was | done before and the OP was asked to split that RFC into separate points, which they've done. I note that Alex-h was on the opposite side of the close as well. Leave the close as is, it's correct. W.K.W.W.K...^{Toss a coin to the witcher, ye valley of plenty} 14:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)