Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive336

Problem editing pattern by Kevin McE: part 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Final warning and Main Page topic ban, which includes Main Page-specific processes like DYK. And To be clear Kevin: I understand you proposed this option, but be aware, your next stop is likely a community ban, not just an indef block. I hope you take this as an opportunity to do better. - jc37 19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

---

A topic ban got imposed on User:Kevin McE (Let's start with a weird topic ban: Kevin McE, you are not to comment on anything related to Alica Schmidt or the editors whom you have chastised pertaining to that matter. That includes User:Schwede66, User:Maile66, and User:Joseph2302, and any other involved user, with or without numbers. In addition, it is clear that editors here are troubled by your tone, which (I agree) seems to betray a battleground attitude, and that may, if it continues, lead to a block. Thank you. Drmies) followed by a 60-hour block shortly thereafter. We wanted to leave the discussion open to see what happens when the block expires but it got archived. Well, the block has expired and Kevin McE is at it again. So it seems we need to continue with this discussion. Schwede66 21:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

And I might as well voice my opinion on the matter. The diff shows a clear breach of the topic ban and the appropriate response is an indef block. Given that, I see no need to also analyse the various accusations and poor conduct contained in that post. Schwede66 21:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet whether the TBan was enacted properly - I could easily have missed something, and have asked Drmies about it, but if it wasn't properly enacted then any breach isn't actionable. That's a bit of a side issue however, because the main issue is Kevin McE's uncollaborative battleground approach, which he seems unwilling to accept is an issue even after a block. I would support an indefinite block for threatening to repeat behaviour that is hostile, corrosive to the community, and ultimately disruptive. An alternative might be a TBan from main page related content, since that seems (at least in this instance) to be what he has got so angry about. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Paperwork or not, Girth Summit, this repetitive anger is too much. BTW, the paperwork isn't all that simple. There was broad agreement on the topic ban that I suggested (OK, imposed), but ANI threads tend to get archived, not closed. Anyway, "actionable" or not, the hits keep on coming. BTW, for anyone who hasn't looked at all the details, Kevin McE got blocked for a simple harassing edit, this one. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, don't get me wrong - I think your block was necessary, and that another one probably is since he intends to keep right on doing the same stuff. I'm just saying that we should act on the underlying problem, not a breach of a ban that hasn't been logged. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

No, I know, GS, I got you--I just wish we weren't dealing with an editor who makes it necessary to jump through all these hoops. I mean, apparently STOP IT isn't enough. Personally, I think the ongoing battleground problems and incivilities are enough for in indef block. Oh, Mackensen agreed with that, on my talk page, so we're at four now. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Indef block - he still doesn't get it. We need to consider our vast and varied editing base. We have school children editing Wikipedia. We have university students who are taking it as a course - and not always getting everything perfect. Our encyclopedia is open to everybody in every part of the world, every age group, every learning step on how to do this, every demographic. On the talk page of Drmies, KevinE wrote, "I will not be tolerant of people trying to contribute to Wikipedia beyond their competence, and when they persist in erroneous and unencyclopaedic 'contributions', that can only be to the detriment of the project, I will not pussyfoot around telling them so: encouraging poor editors by kindness is not going to make Wikipedia better than it is, and taking fools lightly only make Wikipedia appear foolish." Based on Talk:Kalākaua coinage, I guess he means me and Wehwalt. And both of us admins, who went through a public assessment and vote by way of the required Request for Adminship. And may I say that nobody - absolutely nobody - has produced as many Featured articles as Wehwalt. That makes Wehwalt pick of the litter. Yet, KevinMcE couldn't even "tolerate" him. Kevin McE has been on Wikipedia 15 years. If he hasn't learned tolerance of other editors in that time, when will he? — Maile (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Pending - the editor in question edits later in the UTC day, but I would like them to provide their views on both the TBAN and why they shouldn't be indefinitely blocked for recurring negative behaviour. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I see that they're still throwing accusations at me and trying to discredit my edits on the page they're topic banned from. And mislabelling the sources there to do so (the source [1] says she was selected for the relay, and is listed in the "FRAUEN"= women section, so clearly not saying she was ever in the mixed relay team), so the article was originally correct). I will not be tolerant of people trying to contribute to Wikipedia beyond their competence doesn't sound like someone who wants to work collaboratively on here, making accusations about editors who've had hundreds of articles on the front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm happy for people (including native German speakers) to review Alica Schmidt and tell me if the sources don't match text (although I was given the source for that from a German speaker, and I believe from translation that it's all good). And if the user will actually adhere to the interaction/topic-ban, then I don't have a problem with them continuing to edit. But if they're going to continue to grind this axe about this article, then they're clearly not here to contribute positively. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope that comments here will not be taken as comprising a breach of topic ban: I am at a loss as to how I am considered to be given a chance to explain myself if I cannot refer to the things that might need explaining. And yet it seems that Drmies responded to my comments intended to be specifically to him not by responding to me, or making the correction I requested in article space, but by inviting a bunch of people to consider themselves offended by me.

I would have thought that trying to get articles to accurately represent the truth is precisely what all of us are here to do for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, and that seeking accuracy in article space should not be described as "grinding an axe". The Google translation of the article does not specify whether Schmidt was being considered for the women's relay or the mixed event, and unless you (Joseph) are confident that your ability to translate German is better than that of that software, then both your initial presumption that it was the women's 4x400 that she was selected for, and your reversion of my edit to the article, were, to your knowledge at least, unsourced. The source referred to by Joseph in this discussion is about selection for the European indoor championships that took place in Poland in March, and so is a total red herring as far as this discussion is concerned (Maybe Joseph will be willing to apologise for accusing me of mislabelling sources in that regard, and will apologise for introducing erroneous argument to this discussion).

I do not believe that I will ever consider it reasonable behaviour to make an accusation against someone without being willing to either defend that accusation or to retract it. I would hope that Wikipedia would want to hold its contributors to at least that standard of behaviour.

I would be intrigued to read how anyone considers Wikipedia to be improved by editors acting in areas that are beyond their competence, which seems to be defended here. I have certainly tried to ensure that I am informed as best I can be (in limited time) before I make any change to article space: I would hope and trust that all those involved in this discussion would want to say the same of themselves. Kevin McE (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless you (Joseph) are confident that your ability to translate German is better than that of that software Considering I was given the source by a German speaker, I trust it more than you or I using a translation tool. editors acting in areas that are beyond their competence this is the second time you've said this, with no evidence. This won't help your case. I'm happy for a native German speaker to review this source and tell me if I'm actually wrong, but I don't believe I am. And I'm certainly not "editing above my competency", whatever that means. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Now that you are aware that you referred to selection for the European Indoors as evidence of her selection for the Olympics, you may wish to reconsider that last statement. Kevin McE (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No I didn't. They're two different competitions with two different sources, I never equated the two together- just because the 2 things were in the same paragraph, that doesn't mean they that one implies the other, this is the permlink that proves this. Your insistence on throwing shade on people rather than actually doing anything useful for the encyclopedia is tiresome. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I really cannot follow the reasoning of your last comment. As to your request that a competent German speaker review the source, I have asked @Gerda Arendt:, a Main Page stalwart who I presume is known to you, to look at the source in question.

In the meantime, do you have any evidence that at the time of your accusation (diff provided above) I had accused you of anything? Kevin McE (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Although Gerda has not yet replied, Jo-Jo Eumerus, who self identifies as a native German speaker, is active on MP discussions and is a sysop with nearly 80,000 edits has done so:"I don't see a clear indication on that page on whether it was mixed 4x400m or women's 4x400m. It says she qualified for the sprint, nothing about whether she would participate or not." Kevin McE (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I was the user who originally found that RBB24 source for Joseph2302. It says "the 400m runner Alica Schmidt qualified for the relay". The next sentence confirms that it was planned that she should run, because it says about someone else "she only participates as a substitute". There is no explicit clarification of which relay, other than that it is one involving 400m, but the standard assumption a German reader would make is that this is the 4x400m women's relay. —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason why a German reader would assume that it refers to being in the women's relay rather than one of the two women (plus a substitute) in the mixed relay? Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It says "the relay", which defaults to the known relay event, not the new mixed one. Nothing specifically German about that, I admit. —Kusma (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have to consider that to be supposition rather than sourced. The contention that there is a source that says that she was due to compete in the women's relay seems unproven. Kevin McE (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite see why this matters so much. —Kusma (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Alica Schmidt should explain it. Does German lack a distinction between selection and qualification, because in the context of relay teams in Olympic athletics, nations qualify, and the national federation selects the runners. The idea that an athlete qualifies for a relay makes no sense, and (unless the language lacks the distinction) points to at best a lack of precision in that source. Kevin McE (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Hook that was reasonably correct was approved, got changed through the DYK process into something that was wrong. Happens all the time. Worst that happened to one of my hooks was that Lao She was presented as female after a good faith copyedit. It's a bit embarrassing, but the thing to do is make a quick correction via WP:ERRORS. Then the matter can be closed. —Kusma (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the reply feature quietly edit-conflicted. "Nope" was my answer to "Talk:Alica Schmidt should explain it". As to the rest of your comment, I think "she qualified for the relay" can mean "she made the cut for the national selection". In German and in English. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Please allow me to provide some clarifications:

1. Kevin McE, you hoped that "comments here will not be taken as comprising a breach of topic ban". No, you are absolutely safe on that front. You are being discussed here and you need the ability to comment, respond, and put your case forward.
2. This ANI case is not about whether homepage content was wrong or whose responsibility it should have been to prevent this. The discussion on German sources and what it says in them is off-topic.
3. This ANI case is firstly about whether there was a topic and interaction ban in place (and from the brief discussion in the thread above, there appears to be consensus that this was not the case).
4. This ANI case is secondly about how Kevin McE's interacts with fellow editors.

I hope this will focus the discussion on the topics that are of relevance. Schwede66 18:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, but Joseph said that he would engage with me here about his accusation against me, and so far, despite specific invitation to do so, he has not. I believe that somebody who has been accused should have the right to demand that the accuser presents themselves as accountable for that.

Also, I had raised the matter of Drmies bringing others into the conversation rather than making the requested change to the Schmidt article, and not being permitted to discuss the necessary correction to that article anywhere else, I believe I have proved that the alterations are necessary for accuracy in the only place open to me to do so.

But with the proviso that somebody corrects the erroneous article and that Joseph either retracts or justifies his accusation, I am happy to move on. Kevin McE (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that's the point. Accusing another editor of incompetence is a big deal. We've all met editors that fail WP:CIR, but they're usually newbies, people with language issues or persistent POV-warriors. Not experienced Wikipedians with thousands of positive contributions. Yet you did it originally in the lead up to your block (amongst other things), you then did it again on Drmies' talkpage, and you've done it again in this very thread. What on earth are you thinking? Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing an article on selection for the European Indoor Championships as proof that an athlete was selected for a particular event in the Olympics 4 months later does not indicate... what shall I call it then? Adequate understanding of the subject matter? Does somebody disagree with that, or that that is what happened in this thread? Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

(EC) Maybe you don't appreciate the gravity of the situation, Kevin McE. You may as well move on from your content dispute. What we are all waiting for is some response on the underlying behavioural pattern variously described as "harassment", "intolerant", "recurring negative behaviour", "attacking", "abusive tone", "galling ... behavior", "hounding". In case this hasn't quite got through to you yet – there is an expectation by your fellow editors that your conduct is such that you could not possibly be described by those phrases. So you better give some clear commitment that you will change your behaviour for the better or failing that, I predict that "moving on from here" will happen in the form of an indef block. Schwede66 19:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

So I will repeat what I have already said:

That I consider those who have positioned themselves to edit the Main Page, the most visible portal of the project that is directly linked from every page, should be help responsible for the highest standards, concomitant with the mutual congratulations which they lavish upon each other;

That unresearched changes from an agreed main page text (a hook in this case) is not responsible use of the authority given to somebody operating at that stage of such a high profile project;

That edits made without an understanding of the subject matter (or of the English language, or of encyclopaedic form and tone) are not helpful and that there is little to be gained from acting as though they are;

That when an editorial sub-community closes ranks, they can become very aggressive, even if unintentionally so, to somebody challenging them to see the style of their processes from the point of view of an outsider;

That people who lack the humility to acknowledge an error has been made are not helpful for as long as they persist in that attitude.

And in relation to that last,yes, I was intemperate in my language, and regret that, but I had been frustrated several times in the preceding few days, in several issues, and in seeking to find out what had happened in this case, over the Main Page, which I occasionally visit and am frequently very disappointed at the content of. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Citing an article on selection for the European Indoor Championships as proof that an athlete was selected for a particular event in the Olympics 4 months later does not indicate For the second time in this thread (and I think the fourth time in all discussions): I didn't use the European Indoor Championships source to assume anything. I used one source for that Championship, and one source for the Olympics. Cut the crap creating lies about me. Even if you were correct about the one thing you've spent hours arguing (the issue seems inconclusive on that though), the harassment of multiple users on their talkpages and multiple other threads is not acceptable. And using this AN thread to re-argue with me over one line of text, instead of actually reflecting on your own aggressive attitude just proves to me that you're not here to collaborate. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE's lengthy comment here only strengthens me in my opinion. They filled up paragraphs and paragraphs about some translation matter (and unfortunately got Joseph2302 to respond, and got others dragged in as well), but none of that matters here. In fact, I hope some uninvolved admin will come along and hat all those comments. What's key here is this: "And yet it seems that Drmies responded to my comments intended to be specifically to him not by responding to me, or making the correction I requested in article space, but by inviting a bunch of people to consider themselves offended by me." The first part is, in a way, correct; I was not interested in Kevin McE responding to my request for others to weigh in, also because (and this thread proves it) they have a tendency to dig deeper when they're in a hole. But it was never about some "correction" someone requested, and saying that I invited others "to consider themselves offended" by him is just a ruse: I pinged a few admins who, perhaps in varying degrees, saw serious problems with McE's behavior. And it seems that they haven't changed their minds. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

So if I am aware of an error in an article, and I am not permitted to edit that article, is it not the responsible thing to use the page I can edit to seek improvement of Wikipedia? It is not my fault if others appear more determined to defend what is there than to concede the fats of the matter. And Joseph had specifically identified this page as the one where he would engage with me, so why should I not take him up on that invitation? (even if he has not taken me up on mine). Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I find it worrying that the person who assumes the right to call judgement on an issue is "not interested" in the person being judged having any say over the matter. If I were accused of murder I would be more clearly invited to respond.

Looking again, I see that the "inviting others to consider themselves offended" was inappropriate, but I cannot believe that the inclusion of Schwede in that set of pings was a search for a disinterested party for an objective opinion. I should not have extended that to the rest of the pings, and for that I apologise. I do believe though that responding to me would be the appropriate response to my post to your page. Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE, I haven't looked at any of the sourcing, and I don't speak German, but I'm going to do you the courtesy of assuming that you are 100% correct in everything you have said about the content and sourcing, and that everyone else was 100% wrong. Based on that assumption, it is nevertheless my view that your actions were completely out of line: you were condescending and arrogant, and accused your colleagues of either incompetence or a disregard for the quality of our content. That is unacceptable. Being collegiate =/= pussyfooting around. Being polite =/= suffering fools gladly.

This project is in dire need of good editors, but you seem to think either that insulting people will make them better editors, or that if you drive them away from a particular part of the project, they will be replaced by a ready supply of better editors. They won't: it will just leave fewer people working in that space, who will probably make more mistakes because of the increased workload. If you care about the quality of our content, you need to nurture people; give them constructive feedback in a positive way. That doesn't mean ignore their mistakes, it means bring problems to their attention, talk to them politely about how they could have acted differently, and encourage a positive environment that people might actually want to work in.

At this point, if you were to acknowledge some shortcomings in your conduct and convincingly commit to do better, I could see myself opposing sanctions: I respect the body of work you've done here, and I wouldn't throw that away lightly. However, if you're not able to see that there is a problem in the way that you approach people who you think have made a mistake, I genuinely think that a collaborative project like this is the wrong fit for you. Please reflect on that. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

If the user accepts actually following the topic and interaction ban, I would be willing to accept something less than an indef block for them. And that is despite their repeated personal attacks both previously and through lying about me multiple times on this thread. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Although considering that for the last week, all this editor has done is argue about this one sentence of text, I don't see how they're here to positively contribute to the encylopedia. In that time, despite my alleged inability to edit anything, I've managed to create 3 articles, despite this harassment. Really says something about which of us is a useful editor, and which of us is just grinding an axe..... Joseph2302 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for crossing out what would have been another false accusation about me. As to my "lying about you several times", I will withdraw myself from Wikipedia and request a permablock if you can provide proof of my doing so, if, and only if, at the same time you can provide evidence of where, prior to your accusing me of doing so, I blamed you for the MP error. But if you cannot, I would consider this another false accusation against me, and I would ask you, as I have before, to retract it and apologise. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Girth Summit has it absolutely right. Kevin's been told he was bloody rude, and his response has essentially been "well, I was correct on the substance of the issue" which is a complete non-sequitur. A very large part of content work is reviewing stuff someone else has written; and most of us manage to provide such feedback on a regular basis without offending half a dozen people. If he's not willing to undertake to be more collegial, a block and/or a main-page TBAN might be indicated. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope I had made clear above, I accept that I responded intemperately, and I have recognised and apologised for my response to Drmies' pings (although I don't think he will persuade me that his response was the best one). I do believe that there is a problem with scrutiny of MP content: not that there are not several structures, but that there is a small group of editors there who are too willing to take each other's work on trust and permit changes outside of the system of checks and balances that does exist; I also believe that there is a culture there of piling on to anyone who is somewhat outside that trusted group suggesting that there is a problem there.

I do not accept that it is acceptable to make accusations and then refuse to back up said accusation.

And yes, I need to dial it back and not get affronted by errors in Wikipedia, however they were introduced, and so I need to moderate my form of addressing those who introduce errors. I just think that this project could be so much better than it is, and suspect that that would be the case if WP:CIR were given a lot more prominence than WP:Anyone can edit. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that goes some way to addressing my concerns. I do not think I can support a block at this point. That said, I strongly suggest you stop making any reference to WP:CIR with respect to errors on the main page. It's bloody offensive. Aside from the fact that it's in no way a policy, CIR discusses editors who tend to be a net negative to the encyclopedia, despite good faith efforts to help. It isn't at all helpful with respect to occasional errors, or choices that were debatably errors, made by users with years of dedicated and helpful contributions. The WP:Anyone can edit philosophy might fairly be blamed for our neverending school-IP vandalism problem; it has nothing to do with who curates main-page content. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

But Vanamonde93, "I just think that this project could be so much better than it is, and suspect that that would be the case if WP:CIR were given a lot more prominence than WP:Anyone can edit"--doesn't that suggest that Kevin McE's counterpart in that discussion was incompetent? It still spells "I was right". Drmies (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have expressed an opinion about the overall operation of Wikipedia. I did not have any individual in mind in that comment. It is possible to attribute ill-will to almost any opinion that anyone ever expresses: I hope that such projection is not going to be a principle on which conclusions are to be reached here. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, It does indeed, but that was sort of the point of my post; Kevin needs to stop referring to competence altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Drmies: and others, the issue here is lack of basic civility towards other editors, regardless of the competence of other editors. That, and the unmitigated hubris of any editor who had led themself to believe that the end justifies the means. Wikipedia:Arbcom exists as a necessity because abusive editors who are technically correct on one thing or another, were overlooked on behavior until ... well, about where this is right now. Editors who mistreat others, who can't get through a discussion without laying aside civility, should not be excused. Eventually, that editor ends up at Arbcom, several times often. Once it starts to be Arbcom level, the offending editors are often ones who have been around long enough to have a sort of fan club of other editors who make excuses for that behavior. Once you start making excuses for behavior - because, after all, they were technically correct - where does it end? Nobody likes to be a doormat. And if this mistreatment of others is not resolved here, I can see this making it up to ARBCOM in one form or another, where it will drag on and on. Nip this behavior now, please.— Maile (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Eventually, that editor ends up at Arbcom, several times often. Once it starts to be Arbcom level, the offending editors are often ones who have been around long enough to have a sort of fan club of other editors who make excuses for that behavior." That is not the case with me. I hope that whatever conclusions are drawn here are to be drawn on the basis of what I have said and done, not some unspecified precedent that someone thinks I am following. Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly the case with you. Are you still missing the point, that this whole long discussion of you is about how you treat other editors? Snippy posts, and treating other editors as if they were your subordinates in knowledge and skill. You come across as having no tolerance for others, and are very combative. Many, if not most, of the cases at Arbcom are about an editor's conduct towards other editors. This whole long thread here, is about how you treat other editors. That, and the fact that you're absolutely sure you're right, when you're not. This is about your treatment of other editors. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The opening comment says the editor had a topic ban imposed on them, followed by a 60 hour block (presumably for violating that ban). However, they don't appear to be subject to any bans at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and the ANI discussion didn't have any closure, it seems? Is the editor actually subject to a TBAN or was that Drmies' advice/proposal because they seem to have issues in the area discussed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I was still mostly at part 1 and Drmies' talk. I see Girth raised this above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Several of the comments are condescending and belittling towards other editors. It doesn't really matter whether you're right or wrong on the underlying content issue. And TBH, when you attack another editor's competence you generally put them on the defensive, which makes it harder to get anything done. For all the time sinking and animosity generated, if Kevin just pinged a German speaking editor in the first place to get clarification (even if he was certain), or just came across a bit less presumptuous perhaps (probably?) the events would've went differently. Similar for the other issues. It's plainly obvious here too, for example. You don't have to attack someone else's (editing) ability to get content changed, or to get them to agree to your proposal. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the interaction ban was valid, they also violated it in Special:Diff/1038487517 (by editing the same part of an article that I'd edited, which isn't allowed in a 1-way interaction ban). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I had no knowledge that you had edited there. As can clearly be seen in my contributions history, cycling is one of my main interests, and Podmore has been a huge recent story in the cycling community. Am I to check the edit history of every page I look at? Kevin McE (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Indef block – I've mulled this over for a while and have come to the conclusion that removal of edit privileges is the only sensible way forward. Several editors have tried to get Kevin McE to see that his interactions with other editors need to fundamentally change. I see no evidence that he has taken that on board. To the contrary, this very thread contains inappropriate conduct from two days ago: I just think that this project could be so much better than it is, and suspect that that would be the case if WP:CIR were given a lot more prominence than WP:Anyone can edit. Maile66 has summed it up well and I agree that the issue will not go away. Our choices are to let it linger (for ANI or ARBCOM having to resolve it later) or to deal with it now. Yes, the editor has a longstanding history with this project and has produced good content. But their conduct pushes other editors out. Overall, that's a net negative and we should put a stop to this. The poor behaviour is not topic-specific; it's often triggered by MP content but extends into other areas. Therefore, a TBAN can't deal with it and a block is the way to resolve this. Schwede66 01:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, reiterating what I have said to Kevin McE above, if he doesn't change his pattern of interaction with other actors, this is a sure path to Arbcom. His response was, "That is not the case with me. I hope that whatever conclusions are drawn here are to be drawn on the basis of what I have said and done ... " What he's said and done is precisely the issue. — Maile (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like ArbCom material to me, or even on that trajectory. The community is entirely able to handle this problem, and could, but it doesn't seem like a bygone that Kevin can remedy his own approach. All the incidents also seem related so a well-defined topic ban is also possible, if that fails. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

He's been with Wikipedia for 15 years, and has been the same type of editor for 15 years. This is not something that just came up, and is not isolated to one topic. Everybody else is stupid and incompetent but him. Do we wait for his 20-year anniversary before we act? — Maile (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The evidence is largely entirely limited to some recent events (i.e. this month). If you have evidence this has went on for 15 years, now would be a good time to present. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This thread has bounced around, from ANI to the talk page of here, to being moved to an individual talk page, to here. But the above is how this started. And if you want other evidence, run it down yourself by looking at his editing history. He treats everybody with disrespect. He didn't just wake up one morning and change his approach. — Maile (talk)

You're asking for an indef here, and the suggestion of ArbCom suggests you're not happy with the action/response being taken. If, as you claim, this is a problem that has occurred for 15 years, it's really on you to gather the evidence and make the complaint. It's not really reasonable to expect others to trawl through the history of an editor with 41,000 edits. ArbCom, too, says isn't in the investigation business. As for his talk page archives, they are shallow so I did look into them, but it's not too helpful that several comments don't link to the preceding incident and/or diffs. The warnings do indicate the problem may be a long-time one, but what you're asking be done is tantamount to railroading IMO. A proper discussion needs to be had to implement appropriate conduct remedies, and that starts with the proper presentation of evidence that supports the claims made. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

We could start by going through Kevin McE's contributions to WP:ERRORS, which include personal attacks [2], [3] edit warring [4], [5], [6], preposterous nitpicking [7][[8], and insults over apostrophes [9].-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

This was the original complaint before a bot archived it while the case was still open. Original post Let's see if this archived link works. After this got archived, we took it over to the talk page of Drmies who moved it to this page (I think). It isn't that I didn't provide the evidence. It's just it kept being moved all over the place, possibly losing part of it (or not). It's getting a little hard to keep track of the evidence, but it's there. If this link opens as it should, there is at least one of the listed incidents that goes back to 2006, not just something that came up recently. Please take note of a quote where he has accused an editor of "the height of irresponsibility, inconsistency and cowardice" ProcrastinatingReader if the harrassment of Schwede66 were a one-time incident, it would never have made it to ANI, or much of anyplace else. A first-time offense usually gets a warning, maybe a temporary block slap on the wrist. Look at all the posts above. People are not commenting here without a background history on this pattern. — Maile (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66: I had already read that ANI, the 4 linked discussions from this month (although not the 5th, from 2018), and the one at Drmies' talk. People are not commenting here without a background history on this pattern. If you want a block by WP:CBAN (ie, via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute), you should provide the background history of an apparent 15 year pattern. If you just want an uninvolved admin already familiar with the issues to indef, then I dunno what we're doing here? An admin can/should just indef per their own research and, if they deem it appropriate, notify AN? But that's now largely moot, as I think Pawnkingthree's provided evidence shows a pattern. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Indef block Continued WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, this time unsolicited and days after block expired: I will not be tolerant of people trying to contribute to Wikipedia beyond their competence, and when they persist in erroneous and unencyclopaedic 'contributions', that can only be to the detriment of the project, I will not pussyfoot around telling them so: encouraging poor editors by kindness is not going to make Wikipedia better than it is, and taking fools lightly only make Wikipedia appear foolish.[10] Persistent WP:INCIVILITY, absence of WP:GOODFAITH, and refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK. The nuances of the TBAN are, frankly, immaterial at this point. (Grievance in a nutshell: A DYK hook by Joseph2302 was changed by someone else post-approval to include a MOS:DATED statement about a future event, which ultimately didn't happen. Kevin McE blames Joseph2302 for not following the DYK hook cradle to grave. Kevin McE hunts anyone in that DYK's chain for not catching what Kevin McE reported at the eleventh hour.)—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Updated my recommendation below.—Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I am really at a loss as to how I can explain myself, and defend myself if I am then going to be accused of refusal to drop an issue. If you have specific questions to ask me or commitments to ask of me, then I shall answer them, but otherwise I shall be an observer. Kevin McE (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you can't explain yourself. You could stop pretending you're an observer when you keep commenting here, trying to turn a thread about your behavior into some content discussion about something. What you could do is accept from other editors that they have serious problems with your editing style and your personal attacks. You could accept, for instance, that the comments that have been highlighted here are personal attacks (because they are). Or that community members don't appreciate your promise to continue treating editors you think did something wrong will be denigrated and attacked. You could, you know, apologize to Joseph 2302, whom you seemed to have pushed into despair. But you just keep on keeping on, believing that you are right. So again, that's enough for me to say, again, indef. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Can I again ask Joseph, or you on his behalf, to explain what I need to apologise to him for, with diffs, because I can only find false accusations from him against me, which he has failed to substantiate. If he has genuine grounds for a grievance against me, I would of course. Kevin McE (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the place Drmies, but it's probably a good idea to mention that the short block you imposed was the second one he'd received. He was blocked April 14, 2013, by (now retired) John for BLP violations, and unblocked a few hours later by Orlady with the edit summary "On expectation that Kevin McE and John will discuss their differences on article talk page, rather than warring." Block Log, so we know this issue has been going on since 2013, documented in his block log. So, he's been at this edit warring for at least eight years. Even more reason for an Indef. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Well ... competence: noun "the ability to do something successfully or efficiently." Not understanding what is acceptable in a situation, and what is not demonstrates a lack of competence. Kevin has time and again demonstrated that he's inefficient at editing, and unsuccessful at collaborating with others. My conclusion would be that a WP:CIR indef block would be the best path forward for our project. If and when Kevin's situational awareness expands to the point where they understand how they failed at proper behavior, and is then willing to commit to improving said behavior in the future, then an unblock could be arranged. — Ched (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• We're a collaborative project, and this is someone we're struggling to collaborate with. When brought to AN, the right reaction for him would have been to reassure the community about why and how he's easy to work with. Quibbling is the wrong reaction: it shows someone who puts a low value on social skills and who doesn't see any problem with their approach or any reason to change. Some people you can't work with.—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think we've reached consensus, but many of us are WP:INVOLVED. Would a colleague who is not INVOLVED please bring this to a close? Schwede66 03:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, with the number of times that I have been misrepresented and misquoted in all this, the refusal of all participants here to answer my questions or to explain what lies and accusations I have made against Joseph, the blind eye that has been turned to my apology and undertakings herein, and the near impossibility of responding to much of what has been said without such a response being taken as evidence of quibbling, I am not optimistic, but I would hope that whoever calls judgement would be willing to consider what I have said in its own merits, and not be swayed by the bullying piling-on of the responses to it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin McE, you have made some comments above about how you were 'intemperate', but you have written a lot more words about how you were right on the content matter, and how you just feel that this project could be so much better, and how you think there is a cabal of editors who control the main page content and back each other up inappropriately (which is, frankly, inappropriate aspersion-casting). The thing you don't appear to have addressed properly is the fact that you were, as Vanamonde93 aptly puts it, bloody rude to Joseph2302 on the article talk page, and you were bloody rude to Schwede66 on his talk page. Those weren't just 'intemperate' comments, they were outright hostile and appear intended to belittle the recipients. I'd been hoping that you would make a statement to the effect that you understand that the way in which you went into those discussions was way out of line, and that you would undertake never to approach people with such hostility again if you think they have made a mistake. If you can't do that, I don't see how anyone could argue against an indef block (which does appear to have consensus at this point). Girth Summit _(blether) 13:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see where you've apologised to Joseph2302 for calling him a "irresponsible, insincere coward" or made any sort of commitment to improve your interactions with fellow editors, even if you feel they have made a mistake. Since you refuse to do so, I also support an indef.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Sadly, I see a disconnect here. He accepts no responsibility for his own harassment of other editors. The "it's not me, it's them" attitude. Or that unidentified "cabal of editors who control the main page content and back each other up." We have provided links/diffs on the behavior, which are the evidence. Again, I say indef block. Take care of this now, so it doesn't recur, or this situation will likely progress to WP:ARB. — Maile (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Kevin McE: If everything discussed above could be undone and started again, would you do anything differently? Please give a brief explanation. I see claims above about problems regarding collaboration. Do you think there might be any reasonable basis for those claims? If so, how would that be avoided in the future? Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For the record, Kevin McE posted at my talk to say they were unable to respond to my question at the moment but should reply tomorrow. Johnuniq (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also request that they comment on the concern of WP:FORUMSHOPPING that was raised at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_180#Alica_Schmidt_appearance_at_DYK.—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Don't close this thread yet please, as we're awaiting replies to the above questions. On the issue itself, I'm really in two minds. Clearly there's no doubt that Kevin McE's tone to this point has been unacceptable, and needs to be improved. He left me a somewhat snippy message on the Alica Schmidt issue too, although I don't get easily riled by those things so I just apologised for my error and moved on. But the tone used there and on others' pages is not the way to interact collegiately with other editors, and that needs to change. On the other hand, Kevin has made *some* noises above, acknowledging the issues. And yes, Kevin hasn't apologised to editors he's offended, which is a shame, but if he's not sorry he's not sorry and I don't think we should get hung up on that. The bigger question is the future, and whether this will happen again. And as such, I'd like to see responses from Kevin McE to the points immediately above this one from Girth Summit and Johnuniq, regarding his proposals for how he will behave in the future. If he has a satisfactory plan, then I would be in favour of giving Kevin one last chance in the form of a final warning and some WP:ROPE, but with the proviso that if any issues like those above occur again, it's straight to indef.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  While he's not currently blocked, I'm waiting for a WP:NOTTHEM explanation.—Bagumba (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

  Bagumba, that is what I expect, too. When an item was first opened about this editor 14 days ago, I stated in my first post: What I learn from that is that Kevin McE lacks an insight into the abusive tone of their communication. There have been a number of attempts by several editors since to get the user to focus on their own behaviour. None of these attempts have succeeded. I have concluded that there is no insight and without it, we cannot expect any conduct improvement. Hence my view that indef is the only way forward. Schwede66 20:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. So I could throw myself prostrate before you, crying mea culpa, mea culpa; I think that would probably stretch the credibility of some here, and my dignity. More is needed. So some opinions underlying what I did. We all have opinions, and judgement should be based on actions and undertakings, not opinions: of course the opinion of others, maybe of most, will differ.

• If there is to be an active Main Page, it should be held to the highest standards. Although there are many hard working volunteers there, there is I believe a resistance to those outside that sub-community providing close scrutiny, and an acceptance within that group of what is 'good enough' rather than the very highest standard, often to keep those involved content.
• That practices such as changing a hook after it has been approved are neither conducive to MP accuracy nor respectful of the procedure of approving material.
• That the awarding of kudos and congratulatory notes can lead to a tacit "mutual aid" among those who value these, that is not always conducive to the highest standards (and therefore what should be a recognition of, and encouragement towards, the highest standards can lead to a lapse from those standards).
• When an editor believe that an unjustified accusation has been made against him/her, it is reasonable to ask that person making the accusation to either justify that accusation or to apologise and withdraw it, and that it is not responsible behaviour for the accuser to refuse to do either.
• While admirable as a goal, "anyone can edit" causes enormous problems for Wikipedia. Vandalism, failing to understand proper encyclopaedic tone, POVpushing, fanboyism, very poor English, failure to update temporary notes, ignorance of subject matter are all visible throughout Wikipedia and are all largely the result of, or exacerbated by, the freedom of anyone to edit.

So, while being true to those opinions, how do I respond to Johnuniq's question above: "If everything discussed above could be undone and started again, would you do anything differently?"

• Would I have raised the MP error on the talk page of the Schmidt article? Yes, because although Talk Pages are about the article, there should, I believe, be something to address the note that is in the talk page header.
• Would I have still taken Joseph to account for his template drop on my talk page and his accusation that I was 'blaming' him? Yes, because the template was not appropriate (and misrepresents WP:BLP), and I only asked him about his later involvement in it after he had said that I should have raised the matter 'days earlier'(I raised it within minutes of becoming aware of the existence of Alica Schmidt).
• Would I still have raised it at WT:DYK? Yes, because although I had raised it at ERRORS it was timed out of that page very shortly after, and I believe it brought to light important procedural matters that had led to such a mistake.
• Would I still have raised it at Amakuru and Schwede's talk pages? I find that hard to say, not because I support forumshopping (and I do not believe that that is what I was trying to do), but partly because Joseph told me to go to the talk pages of those who had changed the hook, partly because I suspect that MP contributors don't routinely look at the talk pages of articles that have been on MP in the days after their appearance, partly because I would prefer to point out an error quietly on someone's talkpage rather than on a more public forum, and partly because I had not at that point realised the procedural faults (faults in my perception at least, one of the opinions above) that gave rise to it merited discussion with the DYK crowd more centrally.

BUT

• Would I in future drop the challenge to Joseph more quickly, and refrain from telling him what I think of that refusal? Yes, although if I am very honest more because I doubt I will get satisfaction than because I think it is right that somebody refuse to justify or retract.
• Would I respond in the same accusatory (or "bloody rude") tone? No: I let annoyance get the better of me, and that was unfair to volunteers. I need to allow myself to be calmer before I type, to remember that we are all volunteers, that errors don't mean contempt for the encyclopaedia. The level of reprimand I have received here won't easily be forgotten.
• Would I apologise for my tone and choice of words? I do not like the side of myself that I showed in those messages, and am sorry that I showed it, and in trying to emphasise the importance (as I saw it) of the matter, I expressed anger at what procedures allow as though they were the fault of the individuals: for those things, I apologise.
• How would I deal with " people trying to contribute to Wikipedia beyond their competence, ... when they persist in erroneous and unencyclopaedic 'contributions', that can only be to the detriment of the project"? Editors need to be told what is to be expected, and deliberately unconstructive editors what is not expected, but with reference to policies and principles, and distinguishing between the edit and the editor.

So

• I would point out that I have been here for many years, and I would be happy to defend any edit I have ever made in article space as having been genuinely intended (even if overturned by a consensus against me) to improve the encyclopaedia.
• I was given, and abided by, a block in regard to this issue, indeed, I voluntarily extended it by several days.
• I acknowledge that MP has been something of a trigger point for me: I have often gone months at a time without even looking at it, and it won't bother me if I do so again, under a topicblock if people think that just. I'll hope that someone equally pedantic holds it to the standard that I think it ought to have, but if I don't look, I won't know.
• I appreciate that, if I am reprieved at this point, it will probably be under some kind of final warning.

If there is anything else I should clarify or that you wish to challenge me to undertake, please ask. Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think this is a decent response to the concerns. I also think Kevin's final bullet point should be the case. Allow him to continue but on a "no more chances" basis, for a period of no less than six months or a year. I can sympathise with Kevin's issues with the main page (I routinely raise around three or four issues per day with it) and can empathise with his emotional response to some of the above. When all's said and done, if we can't give someone a last chance, what's the point of even debating it? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been vaguely following this discussion, and have known Kevin for a number of years from WT:FOOTBALL. If the issue is his reaction to the main page, then issue a final warning and topic ban from the main page. If that works, great, we gave retained a useful editor. If not, and the problems persist, then we indef. GiantSnowman 20:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• "Would I respond in the same accusatory (or "bloody rude") tone? No: I let annoyance get the better of me, and that was unfair to volunteers." Setting aside the fact that "irresponsible, insincere coward" isn't "accusatory", it's simply an awful insult, it took us eight days to get to this non-apology apology. I am not impressed. But it seems that though we have plenty of seasoned editors saying "indef block" no one is going to pull the trigger on that, and so that old "civility parole" is the best we can get. Kevin McE, you could have just simply recognized that you were guilty of a personal attack and apologized, personally, to Joseph2302 for it. Instead we get these long paragraphs and lists of bullet points, with a half-hearted apology. It is what it is, I guess. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• A Main Page ban (not just topic ban) would possibly be helpful to many of those who were the object of this editor's attacks. However, as I noted, my first experience with this attack mode was not because of the Main Page. It showed up on a talk page of an article being reviewed at FAC. This editor's attack had nothing to do with FAC, however. Original post We don't know who else may have been impacted similarly and not know about this complaint. Again, we need to take into consideration the wide spectrum of "anybody can edit". I hold out for a full Indef block. As one of the editors who has been through it, I share Drmies view. — Maile (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose indef block at this time, and issue a last final warning, with an automatic indef to follow if there's a consensus that Kevin has been rude to editors again. Unlike my respected colleagues Drmies and Maile, I think the above response by Kevin is a good, thoughtful and measured one. Yes, it would have been nice if we'd had it earlier, and it stops short of an outright apology for insulting Joseph and others. But it seems to offer some hope that, having come within a whisker of a lengthy ban, Kevin will use a more measured and friendly tone with us in the future. Maybe he'll be true to his word, maybe he won't, but we know what we have to do if it's the latter. And despite his tone, Kevin does contribute usefully to the main page process. As someone who works there a lot, I'll admit I make mistakes sometimes, and having people looking out for those mistakes is a good thing. I do believe that the main page should be "held to the highest standards". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Main page topic ban and final warning Accept Kevin McE's suggestion for an MP topic ban, indefinite and widely construed, appealable after one year. Issue final warning, appealable after one year, for failure to WP:AGF regarding fellow editors as well as WP:CIVILITY. Their above response was winded, a bulk of it failing WP:NOTTHEM. I'm not sure if they get it entirely (yet), and wouldn't oppose an indef block. However, the tban puts them out of harm's way from the MP, which they describe as "a trigger point for me". I'm willing to apply the very AGF they didn't afford others, stop quibbling, and say WP:LASTCHANCE.—Bagumba (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• I'm still in the indef block camp. There's nothing in that text about direct insults and put-downs: no commitment to stop doing it, no acknowledgement that he's ever done it in the past, no recognition that it's wrong, nothing. Nothing he's said even touches on the most problematic behaviour he's shown. A weak response from us here shows contempt and disregard for his targets.—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment this looks like it's stalling. Of course, the only recourse if this doesn't conclude here is a case at Arbcom. Do you all want that, or can there be some kind of compromise that the community can arrive at? Or even just a decision? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Schwede66, Joseph2302, and Drmies: and others. This does indeed look like ArbCom should handle this. I'd rather not. I'd really rather this all got resolved here. The statement of Kevin McE above is rationally worded. But none of it is a resolution to this. I would feel a lot more confident if we opened an Arbcom case, provided the diff evidence, and let them handle this as uninvolved editors. One thing that seems to stall it here, is some of us were the targets of this behavior, or have had to resolve same. We are not uninvolved parties, and this behavior pattern should have come to this page long ago. I suggest that we open an ArbCom case. Any volunteers to open the case there? — Maile (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• (EC) I'm also still in the indef block camp, as this is a lame attempt at an apology in amongst a wall of words. If the consensus is for main page topic ban and final warning, I would not lose any sleep over that. Schwede66 22:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• If someone wants to send it to Arbcom, then feel free. But I don't feel I have anything more to contribute to this, and was hoping a board full of admins could resolve this without going to the nuisance of Arbcom. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is not my normal stomping grounds, so I don't know the process for closing. I see Closure requests, but quite frankly, I think the evidence has been presented. The issue is whether or not we are ready to close. Other than a well thought-out response from Kevin McE, I really don't think his words address the issues. He promises to do better in the future. OK. And then what? Historically speaking, many who end up on these boards for their behavior, and get by on promises not to do it again, revert to their basic problem behavior. My personal perspective is an indef block from Wikipedia. Not everybody wants that, or has a consensus on what they do want. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• I just don't think this is an ArbCom issue, although I can sympathise with how the editors on the receiving end feel. I do think at least some editors here are not open to any resolution other than an indef. Maile's continuous push for either an indef (she's boldwords voted indef four times) or an ArbCom case (4/5 times), combined with a refusal to link to evidence to support some of her claims, makes me feel uneasy about how this discussion is going, although it's appreciable she was on the receiving end of some of these comments. This isn't an endorsement of Kevin's behaviour, which I opined on above. On the substantive issue, I'm not one to support letting incivility run rampant, but personally I think Kevin's response shows adequate reflection and may well show a change in future approach. He doesn't come across as someone who would say something he doesn't mean just to get out of an indef (more like someone who would rather die on this hill than apologise for something he doesn't feel sorry for). Has he made false promises before? I'd probably say proceed with a topic ban from anything MP-related and a final warning. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my actions, although I probably could have originally answered you more politely. Inbetween your request for diffs, and my seeing your posts, Pawnkingthree posted a sample of diffs of the period I was talking about. His diffs were right below your request. And in fact you posted to me "I think Pawnkingthree's provided evidence shows a pattern." Duh! I bolded my "Indef". Well, yeah - if you want your "Indef" or even "Neutral" to show, you bold it. A lot of others bolded theirs more than once. There is a ton of text for readers to weave through. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Johnuniq: I was under the impression that you were preparing to close this. If not, did you have a !vote to offer? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with much of what ProcrastinatingReader wrote in the comment just above yours at 23:26, 21 August 2021. I looked for some diffs to justify an indef but couldn't find them after a few minutes. There was one over-the-top diff but Kevin McE was blocked for that. KM's reply to my question is obvious bloviation but not bad enough to warrant an indef particularly since some contributors responded favorably towards it. I don't think this needs a firm resolution because I am one of a few admins who would issue escalating blocks (or an indef) if the confrontational and corrosive attitude is aired again. If others agree that is sufficient, perhaps this could be closed with that implied warning and any further issues might be brought to my attention. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If it is to be a final warning it should be accompanied by a topic ban from the Main Page, which I also see consensus for (and agreement from Kevin McE as well). Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Some action is needed. Days after the last block expired, they continued a WP:BATTLEGROUND rant here at the blocking admin's talk page. This was not a heat-of-the-moment exchange; it was deliberate. I recommended WP:LASTCHANCE, but I wouldn't oppose an indef as there's a clear threat that their values conflict with WP pillar WP:5P4, Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility, especially in the face of editing errors.—Bagumba (talk)
      • I'm not convinced that was BATTLEGROUND. At the previous ANI Kevin wasn't even able to comment, as he was blocked shortly after the discussion started. (The block was fair of course, as it was a consequence of Kevin writing this comment, but a side effect is that it may mean the issue isn't put to rest.) The section Kevin started on Drmies' talk was obviously tone deaf, but not BATTLEGROUND. Generally we give editors space to add their comments in community discussions re. conduct issues, explaining the events from their POV, and it's understandable an editor may have the urge to air their POV somewhere afterwards, if they can't do it at the time. Now, really, it shouldn't need to be explained to an editor with 15 years' tenure how/why you can't go around belittling other editors, but regardless I think the community has now sent that message very unambiguously. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Blocked users have access to their own talk page, and are given procedures to request an unblock, if needed. Editors are expected to WP:LISTEN to other's concerns.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Maile66, I have some experience with ArbCom, and if I were still on it and this were presented to us, I'd vote to not accept. I'd say that the community is capable of handling it, it just disagrees on what to do. Personally, I disagree with some of the exculpatory claims made here, but I recognize that not everyone feels the same way. Personally, I don't understand how the editor in question can look at this and not go, "well, I must have been really wrong". And as much as I disagree with much of the content of the comment made just now by Procrastinating Reader, I do agree with the last sentence. I think, Maile (and Joseph, and Schwede, and other numbered or unnumbered editors), that this is all we are going to get, and it's very disappointing, and it is what it is. What I hope for is two things: a. the editor will quietly say to themselves that they may have been fucking up and that it might be wise to act differently, and b. the admins in this thread will not walk away from what in a moral way kind of has become their responsibility: if the editor continues with the same kind of personal attacks and battleground mentality, they will place that block. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Drmies I'm somewhat relieved that you don't think ArbCom would take this case, as it stands now. I leave it up to others for the Closure request. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• That's as maybe, but there's no consensus either way here. This should (and will) be closed as no action because no definitive action has any kind of consensus at all. The community has summarily failed to agree on what should happen here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• So although nearly everyone commenting here has called for some sort of action - either an outright indef, a Main Page topic ban or a final warning, including yourself who said Allow him to continue but on a "no more chances" basis, for a period of no less than six months or a year, because we haven't all agreed on one thing it should be closed as "no action"? That seems bizarre to me. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Drmies and Pawnkingthree: I don't recall that I've ever posted on this notice board before. However, would it be appropriate to do one of those sub-heading options of selections like: (1) Indef block (2) Topic Ban on the Main Page (3) No action should be taken? I supposed we could make it more clear before it's closed. What is the proper procedure here? — Maile (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think no firm rules applies for organization, more important if there was an unwieldy number, which I don't feel there is here. While it's not supposed to be a vote count, it never hurts to bold your intentions and even backup options. In my case, I tried to make clear that I want some action (TBAN or INDEF) as opposed to none. Personally, I would assume those asking for indef block would implicitly be ok with a TBAN e.g. akin to an AfD with, say, 2 deletes and 2 redir !votes being closed as "redir" as opposed to "no consensus".—Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• That kind of structure can help make the consensus clearer, but at this late stage I think we are where we are. I agree the closer should take it as obvious that those supporting the indef would also support the TBAN.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Note This has been listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests.—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Just to make the Topic Ban issue a little more clear for any admin who deals with this Closure Request. The original Kevin McE Topic Ban was specifically for "anything related to Alica Schmidt or the editors". Now that the article is off the Main Page, that specific article is not the Topic Ban we are asking for. What has been discussed above, is that most of the attacks and other issues from Kevin McE are related to content on Wikipedia's Main Page. The Topic Ban requested here is for any issues dealing with the Main Page, since the MP content is what has triggered his disruptive editing/attacks. — Maile (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Kevin McE referred to it at 20:21, 20 August 2021: I acknowledge that MP has been something of a trigger point for me: I have often gone months at a time without even looking at it, and it won't bother me if I do so again, under a topicblock if people think that just.—Bagumba (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Also, a Topic Ban might go a long ways towards soothing ruffled feathers of those who prefer an indef block. It would put the brakes on the pattern, while giving Kevin McE a chance to rerdeem himself.— Maile (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Concise is nice. Is Kevin a capable writer? Yes, good even. Still, with all those words above he offered a low quality apology with the lowest possible admission of fault. While it may be a case of WP:OtherSituationsExist, other editors have been indeffed for far less. In order to fulfill the question/request above: Tban of MP as 2nd choice. — Ched (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Well - this is looking more and more like it's destined drift off into the archives like the previous thread. Hopefully Kevin will still take away the fact that he's on a very, VERY short leash at this point. — Ched (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• There's only one request above this at Wikipedia:Closure requests, so maybe soon. — Maile (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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

RevDel request

Hi, I would like to request revision delete at List of flags of Vietnam, as 27.68.139.221's edit summary contains nothing but pure personal attack. Thanks in advance. UnnamedUser 12:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I took care of the edit summary. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Given the edits to User talk:Lệ Xuân by the IP, a block and further revdel are probably appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've solicited assistance from WT:WikiProject Vietnam. I don't trust Google Translate on this kind of stuff. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mxn: Can you help with an opinion on whether revision deletion is warranted? Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: The revision linked above is a content deletion, if I'm not mistaken. The edit summary has already been removed, and the deleted content has been restored, so I don't know what else of that particular revision there is to delete, unless a different revision is under consideration. The translation in the reference appears to be an accurate translation of the cited source, following the edits in Special:Diff/1039766219/1039956873. I can't comment on the veracity or reliability of the previously deleted content or the cited source, since I haven't had a chance to look deeply into the matter. Minh Nguyễn ^💬 02:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry to waste your time. The edit summary had not been removed when I pinged you and we were wondering if the language (in Vietnamese) warranted revision deletion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Creation of Zhu Mingxin

Could somebody please create an article for Zhu Mingxin. He is a young Chinese footballer who has 25 appearances in the second division of Chinese football. Thank you. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

References

@Davidlofgren1996: I'll create a stub now, you can then expand. GiantSnowman 11:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Mass CSD tagging

Stefan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Stefan2 has tagged probably ~200 files just today for CSD F5 (orphaned) or CSD F6 (no fair use rationale). Many taggings seem correct, but especially among the CSD F6 tagged files it's often just a matter of not having the de facto default fair use template as an album cover for an article about said album is generally accepted to fall within the scope of fair use on Wikipedia.

Because of the sheer number it's difficult to check everything here. Some of the images tagged CSD F5 might be caused by a broken template, typo or vandal. The CSD F6 images that could be fixed by adding a fair use template should just be fixed, not deleted, but the volume and deadline are a problem. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I discovered that the bot which tags files for F5 deletion for some reason didn't tag files with redirects. I happened to have some free time today, so I tagged those. If some of the files weren't supposed to be orphaned, then presumably the uploader sees this and adds it back to the article. The earlier the file is tagged, the earlier someone is likely to spot the error. I think that orphaned files usually are orphaned because they are supposed to be orphaned. The bot seems to tag maybe 500 files per week so an extra 100 or so manually tagged files probably doesn't make a big difference.

Category:Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 16 August 2021 only contains 32 files and there is a week left. If it is such a big burden to check 32 files in a week, then I don't mind if someone edits the template to extend the deadline by a week or two. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Stefan2, if the uploader isn't around anymore, on vacation or just not checking their watchlist regularly they won't notice. When the bot tags something it's usually immediately after some change, so somewhat more likely to be noticed. I'll try to fix some of the descriptions. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just going to make a couple of comments on this.

1. Non-free content use and fair use aren't really the same thing when it comes to Wikipedia as explained in WP:NFC#Background and it's probably best to avoid mixing up the two terms when discussing the this type of image use on Wikipedia; in other words, there isn't really a scope of fair use on Wikipedia since pretty much any image could be used without any real restrictions on Wikipedia if relevant policy was identical to fair use.
2. There are also really no "de-facto" types of non-free content use when in comes to Wikipedia. There are types of uses that are generally considered acceptable per WP:NFCI, but even these aren't necessarily automatically considered WP:NFCC compliant. A non-free file needs to meet all ten of the WP:NFCCP and failing even one means the file can be removed. One of the requirements (or, more specifically, one part of one of the requirements) is WP:NFCC#10c which states that a separate specific non-free use rationale needs to be provided for each use of a non-free file. So, if a file is missing such a rationale, then the particular use isn't policy compliant.
3. It's the responsibility of the editor adding a non-free file to an article to add a corresponding non-free use rationale for said use to the file's page as explained in WP:NFCCE. For sure, lots of well-meaning editors just add non-free files without rationales to articles for whatever reason (many probably just assume all images are the same and aren't aware of the NFCC), but the responsibility is still theirs. If another editor comes across such a file and notices it's missing a non-free use rationale, then they can for sure add the rationale if they feel the use is justified. They can, however, also tag the file with {{nrd}} or {{di-missing article links}} to give someone else the opportunity to do so if they're not so sure, or they can simply remove the file if they feel the particular use is pretty much impossible to justify. Each human editor is different and some may spend more time looking a particular file than others, but bots (unlike humans) are pretty much all the same and are just going to tag and remove files and then leave only a boilerplate notification template on the uploader's user talk page when they do. Since files can only be deleted by administrators, one can hope that the reviewing administrator will take more than a casual look at the file before deleting it and prehaps catch any obvious mistakes. Once again though, it's not the administrator's responsibility to provide a missing rationale; so, if the reviewing administrator feels the use can't be justified, then they will delete the file. FWIW, both F5 and F6 deletion have a seven-day window from when a file is tagged to when it's eligible for deletion and both should end up with the uploader being notified on their user talk page. If, however, the uploader is not around for some reason and they don't see the notification, then Wikipedia isn't going to stop and wait for them.
4. WP:F5 and WP:F6 deletions are pretty common and mostly considered non-controversial WP:SOFTDELETEs. In most cases, files deleted for such reasons can be quickly restored without much fuss via WP:REFUND or by contacting the deleting admininistrator. So, if the uploader or another editor wants a file deleted for F5 of F6 reasons restored, all they bascially need to do is ask and address the reason for deletion. It's still, however, the responsibility of that person to justify the non-free use and provide the required rationale (if missing) for that use.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If a file is tagged with WP:F5 and no one notices, then no one will add it back to an article (if it was supposed to be added back). However, no one would notice if it wasn't tagged, so it's not going to be added back faster if it's not tagged. If someone discovers that the image is missing from an article in a month or a year, this person could either go to WP:REFUND or re-upload the image. That said, most images are probably unused because they are supposed to be unused.

If a file is deleted for having no fair use rationale but the file satisfies the other criteria, then anyone could write a FUR and request undeletion at WP:REFUND or re-upload the file. However, the file should not be used in the article while the FUR is missing as that's not compatible with policy.

Both F5 and F6 give people a week to fix any problems which can be fixed, so files aren't instantly deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds like Stefan2 is tagging things that need tagging. That said, it is usually a really good idea to limit the rate of doing so to a reasonable pace so if a handful of people would like to fix/audit/whatever your work they can successfully do so. For something like this, it would probably be ideal to spread these 200 into groups of 20 or so a day. It looks like a lot of these have been around for a long time--being around for an extra week isn't the end of the world. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that the problem is that files are tagged when someone has the time to tag files, which often means that files are tagged in large batches at the same time. That said, I don't think that the number of files was big. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Stefan2 has just done the same thing with eight NFC images (each with fair use rationale) in the U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps article, with orphan tags for images that were not orphans to begin with. These questionable edits need to be discussed first. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) It's not really the same thing at all Gwillhickers, at least not in my opinion. Stefan2 seems to have removed those files because he felt they didn't comply with WP:NFCC; this was a WP:BOLD edit that you subsequently WP:REVERTed. Just having a non-free use rationale doesn't automatically make a non-free use compliant as explained here and an editor may boldly remove such a file if they feel it clearly violates policy. If another disagrees and re-adds the file, then that is when some type of discussion is expected to take place. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  Am quite aware of why the images were removed, and hence orphaned. As pointed out, the policy allowed for "exceptions", per gallery use, and in this case, is warranted, as their is no other images here at WP of a complete block of eight of the eight separate images in question. Being bold usually refers to making an edit or two. It doesn't justify a mass tagging crusade. In any case, I am not seeking to have any disciplinary measures resorted to here, but only that this activity be checked more carefully. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  Stefan2 removed the files, but he didn't tag them for speedy deletion; they were tagged by B-bot. Boldly removing a file is not really any different from boldly adding a file in that prior discussion isn't automatically necessary. What's appears to be being discussed above is Stefan2's tagging of files either lacking non-free use rationales (WP:F6) or which are orphaned non-free use (WP:F5), neither of which seems related to the eight files you've mentioned above and which both are clear violations of WP:NFCCP. In the case of the orphaned non-free use files, it doesn't appear that Stefan2 was mass removing files and then immediately mass tagging them for F5 deletion, which is something that would certainly be cause for concern; it appears that he was only adding F5 CSD tags to files which were already orphaned for some reason (perhaps being removed or replaced by another editor). These files most likely would've end up being tagged for F5 deletion by a bot in most cases (like what happened with the eight you found), but maybe Stefan2 was only tagging ones that he believed that the bots had missed. As to whether the non-free use of the eight stamp files is justified per WP:NFG, such a thing is more of a discussion suitable for WP:FFD than here; however, at least one other editor raised similar concerns at Talk:US space exploration history on US stamps#NFC issue back in 2016 that nobody seems to have addressed. I've got no idea as to whether Stefan2 was aware of that post, but that's probably a good place to continue discussing these files for those who want to now that you've re-added them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

  In U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps#Space Achievement Issue, the problem is that there is a blatant violation of WP:NFG and WP:NFCC#3, which says that you should use as little non-free content as possible. Since you brought up rationales, note that WP:NFCC#10c requires a rationale which is relevant to the use of the image. The rationales for these stamps are not relevant to their use in the article. For the purposes of WP:NFCC#10c compliance, having a rationale which is not relevant to the use is the same as not having a rationale at all. Please keep further discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 August 19#U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps#Space Achievement Issue. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

NFC policy compliance is not something that should be metered slowly, given it is one of our legal-based policies like BLP. We do want to make sure the initial tagging is being done with human review (as to avoid the BetaCommand issue) and Stefan's rate seems well within that, but we need to make sure non-free meet our policy as per the WMF's resolution on this matter. --Masem (t) 01:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes and no. If it's been there for years, letting the process take an extra week to get them all isn't unreasonable. I mean we have a week process built in on that philosophy when doing a single one. Not unreasonable to ask people to keep to a pace a person could reasonable check in an hour/day. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As was explained to Stefan twice, there is no "blatant" violation of NFC, which acknowledges and allows for "exceptions", per gallery display of the NFC images in question. There is also no violation of NFCCP #3: "Minimal usage: a. Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (emphasis added) Again, there is no "one item", or single image, here at WP that displays all eight stamps in block form, that I know of. Regarding NFCC #10 c, and NFC rationale regarding relevancy to the article -- this really should be obvious. The article is about space themes on US stamps, and the stamps in question, quite simply, display this theme. But let's maintain focus. This forum is about whether the mass tagging effort going on, usually without prior or any discussion, is at issue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Explaining something to someone (even twice) doesn't make the explanation automatically correct; it could just as easily mean the explanation is faulty in some way. Anyway, the non-free uses of those particular eight files will be resolved through consensus at FFD; so, there's not really any value in discussing them here any further. As for the "mass tagging", whether there's an issue with the pace of the tagging seems to be open to discussion, but nobody (at least so far) seems to be stating that any files were incorrectly tagged by Stefan2. If that's what you're claiming, then perhaps you can provide some examples of specific files in which you feel Stefan seems to have been trying to game the system in some way and tagging files incorrectly per WP:F5 or WP:F6. Just for reference, F5 and F6 deletions are reviewed by an administrator before any files end up deleted. If a file is tagged for either and the relevant issue is subsequently resolved; an administrator almost certainly isn't going to delete the file. I also believe (but am not totally sure) there are bots which go around checking F5 tags and they remove the tag if they can see the file is no longer orphaned. So, there are seemingly checks in place to catch any mistakes are made. "Mass tagging" doesn't really require pre-discussion per se, and there is probably lots of project-wide mass tagging going on each and every day by bots and other editors simply doing clean up or other things; it's only when the mass tagging is reckless and incorrect that problems develop like say WP:MEATBOT. So, if your concerns expressed above are related to any files other than the eight now being discussed at FFD, then please clarify which ones to allow further assessment. I'm assuming that you looked at some of the other files before commenting here and didn't show up because you saw User talk:Stefan2#Notice of noticeboard discussion as an opportunity to start a discussion about eight unrelated files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that someone may well be able to fix the underlying issue given time. But taking the time to figure out what can and should be fixed takes much longer than it takes to tag things. As such, it's generally a good idea to let these things run at "human speed" so that the "relevant issues" can be addressed before it gets to an admin. That's my only point. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• In the end I managed to check everything just before the deadline, but I had to uncomfortably push myself to get it done before the deadline. Various other editors appear to have reviewed files as well, that helped. Managed to save various files, e.g. some were PD-textlogo and some were replaced in articles by copyvios on Commons. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Alexis Jazz and Hobit. Marchjuly, no one said anything about Stefan "gaming the system". Citing guidelines about what's allowed regarding mass tagging also evades and misses the point, that the mass tagging often results in orphaned files which are subsequently purged from WP before the uploader, even when notified, has a chance to find about the matter. Again, I seek no disciplinary actions here, only that a word of caution be extended in light of the fact that there have been a number of questionable edits made involving various iamges, in a hurried and continuous fashion, with concerns expressed by several editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks to @Alexis Jazz: and others who helped address the issues. Thanks also to @Stefan2: for finding the problems, though again, it would be helpful if in the future you either help fix things where they can be fixed or take the process slower so others can address things in a reasonable way. Hobit (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with mobile editors who appear to be ignoring warnings/refusing to discuss

I'm seeing more and more complaints at ANI involving editors who are editing strictly via mobile and have never edited a talk page including their own. I suspect most of these editors don't know talk pages exist. These people look like they're simply ignoring warnings on their user talk and refusing to discuss, but most of them may be very well-intentioned and just have so far had zero opportunity to learn policy because they don't even know it's there. Notifying them of a discussion about them at ANI is pretty useless when they haven't even realized they've got a user talk.

But I'm thinking we need to come up with strategies for trying to get their attention when they're brought to AN/I.

• Obviously if they've got email enabled, consider emailing them a link to their user talk/the ANI section if you feel comfortable doing that.
• If they're using edit summaries, recommend the complainant open a discussion section at article talk and put a link to it in the edit summary when reverting a mobile editor.
• Try p-blocking from article space? I've been doing this when it's a mobile-only editor who has never edited a talk or their own user talk. No idea if it's been at all effective in helping them discover talk pages, I should start keeping track.

Extraneous

I don't know if any of the following are possible, but maybe they need discussion somewhere: Is there any way we could automatically email a notification (with a link to the section, not just the page) without someone having to email them themselves? Could that be developed? Come up with some way to strongly encourage mobile users to enable email when they register. Come up with some way to strongly encourage mobile users to enable notifications when they register. Come up with some way to require mobile users to create their user talk when they register, and automatically explain what's going to be happening there and why they should keep an eye on it.

I just feel like this is an issue that is only going to increase in frequency. —valereee (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I've come across this recently; apparently mobile users don't get a notification saying they have a talk page message. A few years ago there was a discussion about introducing a 'soft block' forcing an editor to review their talk page; another option would be more technical, changing the code so that mobile editors receive the same 'you have a new message' notification as those on desktop. GiantSnowman 12:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman, a soft block helps them discover their talk? Or do you mean the same way a p-block from article space would -- by encouraging them to try to find help somewhere? —valereee (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, let me clarify - IIRC there was a proposal a few years ago to introduce a new type of block/blocking mechanism which basically forced editors to review their talk page before they were unblocked. Does that make sense? GiantSnowman 13:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense -- but it doesn't actually help them find it if they don't even know it exists? —valereee (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee See Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 4#What we've got here is failure to communicate (some mobile editors you just can't reach). Nthep (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Nthep, I'll just collapse the extraneous stuff here, probably shouldn't have even brought it up. I really just more wanted to discuss what we should do here at ANI when these come up. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• Does anyone know if a blocked mobile editor will see the block log message? That could be a way to communicate: we create something like {{Blocked proxy}} that tells them about talk pages. – Joe (talk) 13:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, mentioning the talk page in the edit summary is the most efficient way to deal with the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• 

  Block message on commons.m.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org

  Joe Roe, for the mobile site, yes. Can't speak for the app. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: Since June, custom block messages are also shown in the Android app (see screenshot). That's just the block summary message, though, so I don't think templates would work.

  

  Custom block message in the Android app

  – Rummskartoffel 17:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• I wrote an edit filter to communicate with iOS app users. See 1139 . It 'exploits' a bug in the iOS app that allows edit filter disallow message pagenames to be visible to the end user. I believe a similar approach with Android app users is now possible but I haven't gotten around to testing it yet (mainly because I've lost my Android device I used for testing). Articlespace blocks do not help, because the editors cannot see the block log messages (they will see "You have been blocked from editing" if on iOS; or "You have been blocked for vandalism ..." on Android, regardless of the block reason). As of the time I wrote the edit filter, that was the only possible way to deliver a message to the app users onwiki; that may have changed since, as I believe the WMF is working on some of the WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU bugs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Let me try putting it a bit less technical... The effect of the filter is that, to a named editor, they will see this whenever they try to edit outside user talk. If there's a willing Android user we can test whether this concept works on Android, too. In theory a similar approach should since phab:T276139 is resolved. If both these work, admins should have an interim solution to communicate with app editors while the WMF works on proper fixes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: lets follow up at WP:EFN - but 1139 has bad ideas for production use. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  ProcrastinatingReader, "They will see ... "You have been blocked for vandalism ..." on Android, regardless of the block reason" - WTF? Obviously an app can't violate policy (in this case, calling good faith edits vandalism without evidence is a personal attack) but that's completely unacceptable. I have already commented at the WMF village pump, and fully endorse Cullen328's view that the standard desktop site is perfectly usable on a smartphone or tablet and there is no requirement for these broken apps to exist. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  It is possible there's been a fix recently (phab:T276139 and phab:T276147 are now marked as "Resolved") but I'm not sure if the version has been deployed to the Play Store yet. But the Wikipedia app has been in the iOS app store for 3 years now, and in the Android one for much longer. So probably this has went on undetected for years. God knows why the app team thought these were good assumptions to make, and it is one example of where better communication between development teams and community members would've led to better results. Perhaps these Movement Charter initiatives will be a step in that direction? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  Ugh, I've been using article space blocks, hoping it would at least make them more likely to investigate. Damn. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  

  Partial block on mobile site

  

  "See more" with a partial block on mobile site

  ProcrastinatingReader, the mobile site isn't much better in this regard. You have to press "see more" to even see the block reason. The "take me to another page" suggestion that just points to Special:Random is borderline trolling. (task filed: phab:T289416) Yes, I want to edit some random page, that's a proper substitute.. Never mind that Special:Random will never take you to a talk page, so it's futile if you've been blocked from article space.. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• I have & always will be hardcore when it comes to editors not having or refusing to create an account. As for mobile editors? IMHO they should be barred from editing Wikipedia, until the create an account. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: this is not about unregistered editors; it's about registered editors using the mobile app, not getting notifications for new talk page messages. –FlyingAce^✈hello 18:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• I say if technically possible that we block clients that don't get talk page notifications from editing with an apology(Sorry your client is not supported for editing on Wikipedia, you are welcome to edit using a browser). Talk page usage is mandatory. The devs of these clients need a wake up call that this is core and mandatory functionality, not an optional feature. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  This idea makes a lot of sense - if it can be done. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  There is an edit filter to tag edits as "mobile", and edit filters can block editing. So I think it is possible to have edit filters react to useragents. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  There's a tradeoff to automatically blocking in anticipation that they might cause problems that need a talk page. Potentially productive editors, e.g. gnomes, won't get to edit. However, we pre-emptively avoid good-faith but problematic editors having a bad experience. Pick your poison. I don't think we have user data to objectively know which is worse.—Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

• Something similar to what GiantSnowman mentioned above already exists for AWB bots. Whenever the talk page of an actively running AWB bot is edited, it automatically shutsdown the bot. The operator then has to login from the bot account and visit the talk page, only then can the bot be run again. This does not add anything to the block log. Perhaps something similar can be done for mobile users? Like whenever there is a new message in their talk page, an edit filter prevents them from making any edits until they have seen it. The table at WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU shows custom edit filter message is the better communication medium available for now. Users can then be directed to the desktop site to view messages and continue editing. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• If technically feasible then that would be a superior solution to my idea. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I've had issues with/warned (multiple times) a user with this exact ongoing problem- AFAIK, nothing concrete was decided, other than that the user wouldn't be blocked as they don't receive any warnings/messages. Seems a bit dumb to me personally, as the use is still continuing with their minor edits and is persistently adding unsourced content/information. But basically, due to this issue, it seems like they won't be sanctioned/blocked from their disruptive minor edits/unsourced edits.

Either way, I'm mainly mentioning this because one of the threads regarding this user, this particular discussion from February/March 2021, might have some useful information regarding the issue. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1061#Editor refuses to communicate, adds unverifiable information, falsely marks all edits as minor. Magitroopa (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I see the benefits in a technical solution but we do need to be careful not to dissuade good faith edits as far as possible; in many parts of the world mobile access is the only way that people can and do access the internet, you risk breaking 'anyone can edit Wikipedia' if you try to 'pro-actively' solve this problem by restricting edits from one particular type of device, and soft-blocking when they have an unread template could be abused to block an editor from the site without due process. I would also explicitly exclude at least Extended Confirmed users from any restrictions on editing, possibly autoconfirmed too, depending on how draconian the restrictions are. But surely the rule against editing disruptively applies regardless of whether they see the notifications? One could be blocked without warning anyway, then this seems like a strange excuse not to block someone JeffUK (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

That's probably not the best example. Skimming the case, it seems the OP (since blocked for socking) was complaining that a user was not providing citations, but another user vouched that the edits were verifiable and correct, even if not cited. It would be a different case if the user was adding incorrect statements that also were not cited. Per WP:BLOCK: Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Unfortunately, given the bug/feature involving talk notifications for some mobile users, the community needs to decide in the interim when a block is needed to protect the project, even if it might be a good-faith editor who didn't know any better.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Adding External links for a minute

Firstly, I hope this query isn't too out of place; I stopped by WP:HD and WP:RD, and both seemed more wrong than this page. And this is more of a query, because I just don't understand it, than a problem report. I also have not notified the IP users involved.

Someone adds a few links to a page, then immediately reverts themself. To what end?

At Backpack, "different" IPs (all resolving to Hong Kong) add 5 YouTube links to the EL section (20 June 2021 [w/ 7 links], 1 July 2021, 6 July 2021, 7 August 2021, 26 August 2021) then, a minute later, revert. The YouTube links appear to never repeat themselves. None of these IPs have made any other edits. Is this some sort of Google-gaming? Who knows what it is? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

We've sometimes seen people doing this so they can show others the permalink, but I don't think that's the case here. If you look closely at the range contribs for the past year,(eg) you can see them doing this elsewhere, eg, Special:Contributions/219.73.14.6. Looking at the target articles as well as the channels being linked, my guess is that it's a very young human being. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

6 month topic ban end

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

---

Hi. I successfully appealed for unblock via arbcom, which was effective as of 1 January 2021. As part of the unblock, I was given a temporary ban on the topic of the European Schools, which I could appeal after 6 months. I am now filing for a request to lift that topic ban. Recent contributions I have made, have included the creation of the Palais de la Cour de Justice article, which I plan to improve to at least GA status as a long-term project. I am committed to clean slate and second chance that arbcom has given me, and hope that is reflected by my on wiki behaviour. Luxofluxo (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(non-admin opinion): Through a long series of sockpuppets over a span of nearly four years the user behind this account has engaged in a great deal of disruption to this topic. Once an editor accumulates such a record, even if ArbCom lets them back into the fold, we are not constrained to simply "let bygones be bygones" lest they become "heregones". If they truly wish to work on this project constructively and collaboratively, there are literally millions of topics which they have access to edit and for which where is no record of disruption. I am extremely skeptical they could be trusted to edit within guidelines on this topic with little more than a simple expression that they hope that they can do better. I would want to at least see (1) an explicit acknowledgement that they were disruptive (2) they were wrong (3) they won't do such again, and (4) a concrete plan of why and how they wish to edit on the topic in the future. this arrogant, entitled request declined. WP:PACT is highly relevant here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Edited per requester's followup posts Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"I would want to at least see (1) an explicit acknowledgement that they were disruptive (2) they were wrong (3) they won't do such again, and (4) a concrete plan of why and how they wish to edit on the topic in the future." - This process already occurred via arbcom, but happy to do so again. Luxofluxo (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when something besides a full ban can be appealed after 6 months there's an expectation that you'll show a reasonable amount of constructive contributions in that 6 month period if you're going to appeal that soon. Okay it may be nearly 9 months but it seems you didn't edit at all until July (which I do hope had nothing to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Euexperttime/Archive#08 January 2021), and until now you have a sum total of 173 undeleted contributions since you were unblocked. Even if you really have done brilliant work at Palais de la Cour de Justice, it's just not enough IMO. Even bringing it to GA wouldn't be enough IMO. As Eggishorn has said, there are a lot of articles you can edit. You should take another 6 months or frankly more and demonstrate your commitment with these articles. If you only want to edit European Schools articles, sorry but I think you're still not a good fit here. BTW, please don't ask for a minimum number of contributions or something. You shouldn't be worrying about that. You should just be working as much as you're willing and able to improve Wikipedia in the areas you can edit. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I should add that the amount of evidence we'll need also depends on the level of previous disruption. As Eggishorn mentioned, yours was very high, so reasonably we would expect more evidence of sufficient reform and the ability to edit constructively. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. I will keep contributing and building up trust. Luxofluxo (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You were socking two days before your unblock and subsequent sockpuppet investigation. You then proceeded to wait several months before returning so that the CU data of your most recent sock would be too stale to be useful. Sro23 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/zealot#Noun Luxofluxo (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you think this post will increase the likelihood that your topic ban will be removed? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaking_truth_to_power Luxofluxo (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're not nearly as clever as you think. I guess I would oppose this topic ban from ever being rescinded, no matter how much time has passed. Still blaming others for their own unethical behavior in the middle of a request to have a sanction removed, while apparently believing they've been wronged and can be righteously indignant? I'd suggest an uninvolved admin close this now, it is not going to be successful. Neutral on reinstating the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I think trying to reinstate a block because you took affront to the URL of a wikipedia page (which perhaps had a little more grain of truth to it than you would like to admit) says more about you, this process, and some admins, than it does about me. But that's long been the argument of many stuck in limbo. I am far wiser to know that will never change, "no matter how much time has passed". It is, as much as I admire this encyclopaedia and am happy to contribute to it constructively where I can, unfortunately endemic. But I'm not going to grovel. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait. You repeatedly, flagrantly, deceptively, and knowingly abused the good faith of this community for four years and yet you think you're the wronged party? Points for arrogant lack of self-awareness, I suppose. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh do stop moralising. There are certain zealots on this site, who no matter how much time has passed since the original infraction, how much in ignorance that infraction was made (do you think for a moment that I would have sockpuppeted on voting for a non-free image - the original infraction - to remain as logo on franchises of an organisation if I had understood how serious it was to this community) or what contributions have been made, or the multitude of convoluted processes, or how much personal information I had to divulge (that I still haven't been able to rescind), will never accept an apology or be willing to grant a tabula rasa - as I originally sought. And to criticise them can always be dismissed as arrogance - but I assure you it is anything but. I'm certainly not proud of what I did in anyway. I regret it and would take it back in a heartbeat. Anyway, I'm prepared for the pile on of moralising that such criticisms of this community, even though they are well documented outside this site bring. Ignore this. I apologise and recant. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting the topic ban per their general attitude. Letting them back into a place they've had issues in the past is a recipe for disruption and wasted time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

In what way? What disruption would I bring to those articles at this stage? Luxofluxo (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

In just your request for removal of the topic ban you've engaged in personal attacks by calling an editor a zealot and accused another of moralizing while referring to more unnamed editors as zealots. You're being disruptive here, and this would be where I would assume I'd see your best behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive seems to be a very flexible word. Luxofluxo (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(transitive) To interrupt or impede[11] It certainly seems you're impeding your own topic ban appeal. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

{{{1}}}Luxofluxo (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• After reading through the above discussion, I'd rather see Luxofluxo re-blocked entirely, with an explicit request to ArbCom not to unblock without consultation of the community, than unbanned. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

What specifically do you take issue with? Luxofluxo (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bludgeoning, for starters. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't follow. Luxofluxo (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

−

• Support reblock, as per ToBeFree. Reluctantly, but I'm stunned at how Luxofluxo is handling this discussion. A completely different approach might have me change my vote (seriously, it's not too late, Luxofluxo, really honestly not too late; WP:STICK has some pointers). --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right, and perhaps it took your blunt comment for me to see it. I misjudged both the timing of this appeal, and my tone. In my defence (for what it's worth) I've had quite the week and quite the day. I apologise profusely to all above, and to Sro23, who I acknowledge has a vital role to play in protecting this encylopaedia, and is not, as I inferred, a zealot. Please do ignore my above comments, and close the above discussion. I will strive to re-earn the trust of the community within the spirit of the community before I appeal again. Luxofluxo (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose - Despite having a history of socking, Luxofluxo seems intent on try to blame it on everyone else rather than actually addressing their own behavioral problems. Their behavior above in the thread does not instill me with confidence that they can return to that subject-matter area and not be disruptive again. Hog Farm _Talk 21:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If I may add, no worries from me and thanks to Girth Summit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You may add, ToBeFree, and I appreciate you letting me know that you're OK with it. Thanks too to Yamla for the 'thank' - I'm glad neither of you think I was treading on your toes. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 21:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Lime (band)

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

---

Resolved

Unsure if this should go here, or WP:ANI. Can't indef IPs, but this is a clear legal threat.

• Charlesmm2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one in a series of throwaway accounts editing Lime (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which has a complicated and bizarre history. Others:
• 67.49.64.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2607:FA49:CB3E:3900:E836:5F26:964C:913C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robb Cooper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robfromlime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Denyse Le Page (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Skyguyfla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DUDES FLL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robbcoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRealLime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LIME MANAGER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I tried to clean it up and (correctly) predicted I'd regret it. Apparently the only thing all editors agree on is the founders, but who may or may not have succeeded them as band members and reliable sourcing as to the "impostors" is non existent although one edit claims a trademark. I protected it to stop the BLP issues, which led to the above legal threat, but any longterm solutions? Star Mississippi 18:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy @CaptainEek: who protected this a year ago almost exactly. Star Mississippi 18:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've given the IP a week-long "break from editing" for the legal threat and doxxing threat. Hog Farm _Talk 19:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• In terms of long-term solutions - AfD looks like a possibility. I skimmed the sources in the article, and all the ones I looked at give the subject negligible coverage - the better ones are about other artists covering their work. I'm not an expert on notability in pop bands, but from a non-expert perspective it's looking quite ropey, and deletion would stop the disruption... Girth Summit _(blether) 22:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be kept. They had a gold record which reached #1 on the Billboard dance charts, so they meet WP:NBAND. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Pawnkingthree, again, I'm very out of my comfort zone with pop bands, but that assertion has a 'citation needed' tag, and I'm not seeing it supported in any of the sources in the article. The article has long been subject to dubious editing - are we confident that assertion is verifiable? Girth Summit _(blether) 23:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately much of Billboard's website is subscriber only. This source seems to support the claim. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. Pawnkingthree since you're more well versed in music, what do you think about stubbing it even further than I did to incorporate the dance #1 with your citation and then strip everything else out. While notability is not temporary, it didn't appear anything subsequent to that merits inclusion in an article about BLPs and since the membership doesn't appear to have attracted reliable source coverage, I don't think it's something we need to include. Tempted for long term EC protection but would love to be sure any problematic content is gone first. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I added that source and trimmed some other stuff. I can't really evaluate the quality of the offline sources though. It does look like long-term EC protection may be necessary. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've extended it and I think we can consider this resolved for now. Star Mississippi 21:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Full protection note

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

---

I really must insist that this doesn't become another thread of discussion on the situation, but I'd just like to note for transparency that I have fully protected Johnpacklambert's talk page. I've done this as further discussion by other editors is not going to help. I have set the full protection to expire in 5 days (31st August), so it'll be clear before any TPA is restored. I would respectably ask that although an administrator could edit the page, that they do not. If anyone objects to my decision, a simple note here will suffice and I'll revert it. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 22:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

TheresNoTime, I do not object to your decision, I think it's probably a good one. I commented there myself a couple of times today after JPL pinged me, and I wish I'd taken the time to read through everything before I did that. Good call. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Extremely involved, but support this decision as I did Floq's removing TPA. Blocks aren't for time out, but this situation needed one. Star Mississippi 00:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Here's your "simple note" then. I object. Wikipedia is not an internet forum, and admins are not forum moderators; you have absolutely no authority to just randomly decide "no need for continued conversation here" and fully protect someone's talk page based on that decision, period. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) @Iaritmioawp: Thank you for your message - I fully agree that my unilateral action could well be described as "misuse of page protection" (as nothing in policy allows this), and I'm aware that this stretches the concept of WP:IAR a fair amount. Because I have relied entirely on the concept of being "allowed" to ignore rules to "improve things", and this has now been challenged, I have reverted my application of full protection. I remain convinced that there is no need for continued conversation by other editors at that user talk page. If you would like to discuss this further (i.e. to report abuse of admin privileges), could I suggest we move discussion to a more appropriate venue? I am keen to not (re)hash any potential discussions i.r.t the user in question. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 02:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• With all due respect, they do if the community supports that decision. Dumuzid (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• I generally support this for the 5 days. From my uninvolved view, a bit of a cool down period was needed if the situation was going to stabilize. I really think it needed to happen to let all of the heads cool so that JPL can get to where a calm unblocking request can be made in a week. Hog Farm _Talk 02:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I support TNT's action as in the best interests of the encyclopedia and likely best for the editor. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is a common practice when a user has their talk page access revoked and other users keep the discussion going on their page. It is not appropriate to carry on a discussion in the user's absence on their own talk page. I have been an admin since 2006 and I have seen this done many times since then. The talk page was revoked to reduce the heat for this user, there are many other places to carry on such discussions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I also support the protection; I was not far from full-protecting the page myself after seeing this edit (now admin-only). An eminently good move, even if it was IAR. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• TNT, I've reinstated your protection. Happy to take the absolutely no authority to just randomly decide heat for ya. This is a sensitive matter and it warrants erring on the side of compassion. El_C 03:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Without rehashing things, support both TNT's original protection and El C's reprotection as being in the best interest of both the editor and the encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse protection—thanks TNT and next time don't be so polite because there will always be someone who objects that their right to piss about should not be infringed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnuniq (talk • contribs) 03:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I support the protection as an IAR protection, and I also think self-reversing it following a complaint, and having another admin re-instate it, were both good actions, an example of our system of checks and balances working in a notburo way. This is a situation where cold water needed to be poured all over everything to let it cool off, so that everyone can return to it later, calmer, and focused on solutions. Levivich 04:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I fully support this protection. JPL needs to take three steps back and many deep breaths, and neither his continued ability to edit his talk page, nor anybody else posting there, is going to help more at this time; he's already been given the advice he needs. I genuinely think this is the most humane thing to do. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• I support the protection per Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages. Our protection policy states that protection may be applied if there is severe vandalism or abuse and I trust TNT's evaluation (and those of others here) that the community discussion on that page (which the blocked user could not even reply to) was harmful and bordering on abusive given the editor's obvious distress. The subsection on talk pages of blocked users also supports TNT's decision. Not only does it presuppose protection of blocked user talk pages is necessary, it recommends a duration identical to the one TNT chose: When required, protection should be implemented for only a brief period, not exceeding the duration of the block. If we want to go the IAR route, that's fine too, but this seems well within the protection policy as written. I will say, it's written badly and important information is scattered all over the place. Maybe one day I'll get around to separating out the advice from the descriptions of each protection level. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• This was the right call. Good job TNT in doing it, and bringing it here to cover your bases. Also, thank you to El_C for the reprotection of the page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse protection and the handling of the situation once challenged. Yes it might be paternalistic from a certain angle but in context I feel it warranted and I am sure that TNT and El C acted with the best interests of both the community and talk page owner in mind. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• If we keep this up we'll be looking at an entry at WP:100, at least! Girth Summit _(blether) 21:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Request specific file revision deletion

File:Logo of the International Practical Shooting Confederation.png

Please hide/delete the file revision from 10:07, 27 August 2021. Leave the initial revision from 17:17, 23 August 2021 alone. I'm not sure what would happen if a bot processed this or someone tried to remove the missing revision, that's why I'm asking here. See phab:T124101#7314455 for details. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Sudden UAA backlog

An unusually large volume of bot reports came in today — there are now 25 usernames for administrator attention. Most of the new bot reports are likely false positives, but an admin will need to check each and every user's contributions to decide if the name blocks UP. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS's concern about a block

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

---

Please, take note of the ongoing issue at my talk page regarding a recent, already expired 48-hours account block which I contested (twice during the block) and remain unexplained. I consider some administrators' actions contrary to some basic conduct rules and responsibilities (issues related to accountability, poor judgement, disruption of rules, administration tools misuse, unsatisfactory communication, etc.) and ask you to please intervene.

Administrators involved in my talk are JBW, Daniel Case, Yamla and HighInBC.

Beyond the contested pertinence of the account block and its compliance with WP rules, I consider a very serious problem the repeated lack of any explanation of the actions taken.

Apart from the specific problem this user is experiencing, it appears to be an issue requiring the attention of the administrators' community in general, mainly as to how applying and justifying account blocks, which leads me to post it here rather than in WP:ANI. Thank you very much in advance.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS From looking at the edit history, you were indeed edit warring. Go and read WP:EW again - you'll see that 3RR isn't some sort of entitlement, it's a bright line that you will be blocked for breaching. Administrators may use their discretion to prevent disruption even if edit warring doesn't cross that line. From looking at the article's talk page, I see a worrying level of incivility and hostility on your part, which would have certainly been a contributing factor if I was considering whether or not the block your account - I actually think that the duration of the initial block was very lenient, in the circumstances. You subsequent appeal was extremely combative and aggressive, and it didn't properly address the reason for your block - I don't think anyone would have accepted it. Rather than telling everyone that they are doing things wrong, what you should do is ask how you can do things better. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I was about to post a response, and see that Girth Summit has put it better than I was going to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS, I reviewed your unblock request but didn't get to it until after your block had expired. Not a huge surprise; by the time you posted your unblock request, there was less than half an hour left in your block if I'm doing the math correctly. I said "Block has already expired". It looks like you expected me to explain your block, even though I didn't place your block? Are you claiming it was abusive of me to fail to do so? Are you claiming it was abusive of me to close your unblock request, even though your block had already expired? If so, mind elaborating why? --Yamla (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest people look at this post to my talk page where it is claimed my revert is in violation of WP:COPO,WP:VANDAL, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISRUPT, WP:HARASS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:AOBF, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:NOTCSD, WP:PRESERVE. PLUS ULTRA CARLOS appears keep on quoting alphabet soups in perceived support of their case, but seems oblivious to problems with their own editing. FDW777 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

All of those in a single revert? You must be the chosen one, whose coming was prophesied. Grandpallama (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

PUC, I'm not sure I understand your repeated accusations that the blocking admin didn't "justify" their block. The block notice says You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent edit-warring, which you have continued to do despite having been informed of the relevant policy ten months ago. That's a pretty clear explanation, and it's a valid application of blocking policy. You were edit-warring to add material against clear consensus on the talk.

As an aside, when you're arguing with multiple editors who are much, much more experienced than you are, it's a good idea to consider whether you might be the one who is misunderstanding policy. If you'd like an easy way to give yourself a reality check on that, enable Preferences>Gadgets>Browsing>Navigation popups, which allows you to hover over a username and see how experienced that editor is. —valereee (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@PLUS ULTRA CARLOS:Here are a few comments which I offer because if you read them and consider them in a constructive spirit, they may help you better to understand the issues surrounding your block, and thereby help you to avoid further problems. I can't tell whether you will consider my comments in a constructive spirit, but I offer them to give you a chance to do so if you choose to.

You were blocked for edit-warring. However, as Girth Summit has said above, there were also other matters which were contributing factors, and for that reason when I blocked you I also warned you to be careful about other matters. Girth Summit also says that the block was "very lenient, in the circumstances", and indeed at the time when I placed the block I thought that many other administrators would have blocked for longer. Also, most administrators would probably have just given you a standard templated block notice that would have taken them a few seconds to post, whereas I took the trouble to write a bit more, specifically mentioning that you were already aware of the policy on edit-warring, and advising you to be careful also about other editing problems, to avoid further blocks. I therefore gave you more, not less, explanation of the block than is typical. I don't know what you may guess was my reason for doing that, but it was an attempt to help you to avoid future blocks.

A significant part of your first unblock request was nothing to do with the reason for the block, but just an ad hominem attack on me. That approach is more likely to turn others against you than to win support, so I suggest thinking carefully how you express yourself in future. Bear in mind that Wikipedia administrators are volunteers, giving up their own time in order to do their best to help the encyclopaedia. Of course you will sometimes disagree with administrators' decisions, just as I do, but when you do so it will be more helpful if you can explain to them in a friendly way why you think they have made a mistake, rather than coming across as angry and belligerent. Editors who won't or can't deal with disagreements in a friendly spirit tend not to last long, unfortunately, even if they have made useful contributions to articles.

I have spent some time writing these comments. I hope that some or all of them may be helpful to you. JBW (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I guess I have some useful explanations, specially from my WP first account block decision-maker JBW to whom I assure to take it all in a positive way while always recognizing the editors' volunteer contribution, as it is mine too. I thus try to reply to all the issues you have raised, some alien to the questions I put, and also ask you people to take it positively.

Having said that, my appeal displays some relevant facts for a decision to be taken, apart from other criteria the appealing administrator may use. In this context, if an account block considers the editor's history, as many here recall, the record of the editor blocking the former matters too as it is the case regarding my legitimate doubts about the appropriateness of the block. This is precisely the practice for administrators being admonished, blocked or banned as some dispute resolution awards confirm. Regardless the outcome of the present discussion, my legitimate complaint is hereby duly recorded as it is my account block. In principle, and presuming good faith, everybody here contributes trying to get a nice Encyclopedia. I do my part too, whether I might be right or wrong and regardless my experience and credits. Some comments above seem to neglect that.

In any case, all the people's nice comments above forget to address that the edit war was indeed ended well before as a warning was addressed to me the day before and pursue the discussion at the talk and even proposing several solutions. Thus, the block was certainly unnecessary in my viewpoint. Nobody here agrees or has doubts? The warning was effective indeed and I got the message. At least, this was my spirit of mind and my clear attitude from said warning. That's why I got surprised to see my account blocked by a decision taken the day after, kind of 24 hours later. That's why I considered the block unjustified and then no real explanation given for I brought the issue here.

Since some of you say explanations were given, I quote the administrator's decision on appeal:

"Decline reason: First, see WP:NOTTHEM. Second, you'll be out of this in a few hours so at this point I don't consider an unblock to really be worth it. Third, also consider WP:TLDR in the future when formulating unblock requests, which of course we all hope you will not have to do. — Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)"

Anybody here detects any explanation about the appropriateness of the block, which obviously is the subject of the appeal? Please anybody helps here for I find none. Maybe the wanted Ferris Bueller pops up if we continue reading the decline reason until the ring bell or till the world's end. Great movie by the way. In other words: Is the decline reason in compliance with WP:ADMINACCT?. Honestly, I do believe it is not and nobody here is addressing this very key point yet, but deviating from it and diverting the attention to other questions, my actions included but not the administrator's clearly unjustified action. I must comply with WP rules as you are and feel some corporatism to avoid dealing with the accountability issue. Anyone here dares to be the hero for the cause? Come on, you are engaged administrators of WP and this is a perfect moment to step forward and talk!

I fully understand account block decisions are not based on mathematics or are even applied with varying flexibility depending on each administrator...though the main question for you to answer yourselves or, if you allow me, for me to know, is, given the case of an editor has stopped an (short) edit-war pursuant to a warning and even thoroughly engaged in a discussion to reach consensus, is an account block still justified the day after?. I'm sure you understand my point.

In addition, a new editor being warned about a year ago is an additional justification? Since nobody here contest that, it must be the case. I take good note. Thanks a lot. Or it isn't?

Besides, qualifying as extremely aggressive or incivility for an unblock request or for legitimate explanations due by administrators, or for providing the good reasons supporting my position in the talk sometimes with some irony or even in a sarcastic manner...seems to be an extremely aggressive statement. My tone in the talk is not in line with or more acceptable than the Grandpallama's, for saying something, hilarious comment above about my edits AND my person? Good example then of respect and civility at this high venue.

I take good note anyway of your comments and thank you very much from your teachings.

Regarding the “clear consensus on the talk” comment...this is simply false, unless I do not get what a consensus is. There is no consensus and the discussion remains open and I am still waiting for other participants' positions to counter mine to find a solution, whether by consensus or dispute resolution. Moreover, my edits were mass removed in the middle of the discussion by two users participating in it. If you are interested in that article current discussion, you are most welcome to join it. My points there are well explained starting with the article title and the content of it. Many thanks.

I finally refer to FDW777's comment above which gives a hint of the controversy and actions I complain against. As I took the time to analyse what's going on with that article, the so-called alphabet soup (i.e. WP:COPO,WP:VANDAL, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISRUPT, WP:HARASS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:UNSOURCED, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:AOBF, WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:NOTCSD, WP:PRESERVE) represents, sorry about that, what I honestly believe the bulk removals of my work by said user are.

I do seek and am committed to improve my contribution to WP. To anyone here feeling concerned, please consider doing the same, regardless the long, starred experience of some. Aren't we all human subject to mistake and improvement as WP puts it? Or only editors with no adminship are and administrator unmovable supernatural entities keepers of the Faith? I guess nobody here believe that, for you must agree with me that I legitimately had my doubts and therefore questioned some actions in my talk and in this forum. This in any case doesn't affect my capacity to question my own actions, by myself but above all thanks to good explanations and guidance from communicative, constructive administratots and editors, even when blocking an editor. Precisely what I think was somehow missing.

As per Yamla, please note that you are just mentioned as being involved in the issue. Many thanks for your prompt intervention though late to decide on the subject.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The tl;dr advice from Daniel Case was sound. Recheck that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS, The Blade is right - this is exceedingly long, it's unlikely that anyone is going to volunteer to read it (we're all volunteers remember). I'd strongly advise you to cut it right back to the bare essentials - remove any hyperbole, minor points etc, rhetorical questions, etc. I will say one thing though - I see that you are doubling down on your assertion that FDW777's actions amounted to WP:VANDALISM. That is a personal attack, and you are opening yourself up to being blocked again, for a longer period. You should retract that. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank very much for your advice and information. I tried to address the many issues raised by editors. Forgive my style, grammar, syntax, etc. since my English skills are limited but prefer keeping my statement as it is and assume the risk on readability you mention. Please, note that the bold letters are intended to help any reader's follow-up.

Regarding the WP:VANDALISM issue, I didn't know this was considered a personal attack until warned on August 23 and I do not understand yet how an editor may use that WP argument/rule face to any action perceived as vandalism, i.e. the indiscriminate mass removal of his/her work as to prevent further disruptive editing? Note that in the article talk that FDW777 has recognised, after his repeated removal actions, that "some" of my entries may well fit in the article. I believe this was not taken into account when deciding about the account block and my appeal. The indiscriminate removal is my reason of considering it as Vandalic according to WP. How can I complain then? Besides, I've seen other editors, including one whose comment has been removed by FDW777 from his talk, directly pointing other users as practising vandalism. Can an administrator consider an action vandalic and a base editor not?

Of course, there's no problem for me to retract, and I hereby do as you kindly suggest, from the assertion denouncing that the concerned editor's mass removal of content of that article breaks WP:VANDAL among other WP rules. On the other hand, is it possible to replace "break" by "may break" WP:VANDAL and remain compliant with WP policies from my part ? If that's the case, I would then keep my statement mutatis mutandis and let you or anybody else check the reasons of my post at the article talk and revision history. Many thanks again.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS, have you actually read WP:VANDALISM? The main point that it tries to get across is that vandalism is about an intent to harm the encyclopedia. There are all sorts of different kinds of problematic editing which are not about that intent, but we only describe things as vandalism when there is the obvious intention of harming our project. That's a serious accusation - we are all volunteers, giving up our time freely to improve this project. We sometimes disagree, we sometimes fall out and have arguments, we even sometimes do stupid things because we're angry - but to accuse someone of intentionally harming the project is extremely serious. So, no - you can't invoke WP:VANDALISM, except when you are certain. I suggest that you now make a clear and unambiguous statement to the effect that, while you disagree with what FDW did (as is your right), you accept that they did it believing that it was an overall improvement. Then go and condense that massive wall of text above. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was no vandalism involved, as vandalism is defined as intentional damage to the encyclopedia and there clearly was no intentional damage to the encyclopedia from any party of the dispute. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Rather than digging yourself further into a hole by trying to use semantics like "may", just don't do it. Unless it's clear cut vandalism, don't call it vandalism. It's a stupid thing to do. It does not help whatever point you're trying to make, since instead of focusing on the edits there's a focus on whether you calling it vandalism is fair. There are plenty of extremely harmful edits which are arguably not vandalism. Just describe the problem with the edits without using incorrect simplifications. Also "didn't know this was considered a personal attack until warned on August 23", well okay fine. While I'm not going to look into the details of when you called stuff vandalism, you were blocked on August 24. This means any of the edits after your block like your appeals, your request for clarification etc were after you were warned. Therefore not knowing cannot be an excuse for continuing to make personal attacks by calling stuff vandalism which wasn't, in any of those edits. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Having looked at his edits to List of top international rankings by country[12] I am concerned that not only do they appear promotional, many are badly sourced, including claims to be the "best" or whatever while using sources that are several years old. Quite a few do not link to relevant articles, and at least one is not backed by the article it should have been linked to. Doug Weller talk 09:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Just found the discussion at Talk:List of top international rankings by country#Spain section and list criteria which is not encouraging. I raised some issues on his talk page yesterday. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

MoS RfC closure challenge: job title capitalization in infoboxes

I am challenging the close by Chetsford at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Government bio infoboxes, should they be decapitalized or not. Chetsford writes in their close: In the absence of a consensus, the status quo (capitalized titles) should be observed. I disagree that that was the status quo. To justify this, Chetsford writes: I believe the status quo is that job titles are capitalized. I base this on the construction of the RfC proposal. No editors objected to the formulation of the proposal ("keep the titles capitalized") which I construe to mean all editors agree that capitalized titles are the status quo. This is based on a non-neutral wording of the RfC, which I did, in fact, dispute during the RfC ([13], [14], [15]). The MoS is quite clear that job titles should be lowercase when modified by ordinals (MOS:JOBTITLE), and that sentence case is used in infoboxes (MOS:CAPS). There is nothing in the MoS that allows for the use of title case in infoboxes. Chetsford acknowledges that this is the case in their close: The second problem that will emerge with this close is a lack of clarity as to the status quo. The "pro de-capping" camp seems to be arguing that lowercase job titles are the statutory status quo, just not one we follow in practice. What we follow in practice is not relevant. There are a lot of users who try to force title case into articles because they don't understand that Wikipedia uses sentence case. What this close has done is create a glaring exception to Wikipedia's widespread, established use of sentence case. When a discussion is closed as WP:NOCONSENSUS, then that close must refer back to the established MoS, not override it with something completely new. Link to discussion with Chetsford prior to this challenge: User talk:Chetsford#Recent close. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• No consensus means we continue with the practice of capitalising in the bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thus seems like a somewhat silly proposed ground to overturn a carefully considered close. For one thing, the challenge assumes that the question should have been "is title case or sentence case to be used in infoboxes", but, like all other style guides, Wikipedia capitalizes proper nouns so, if a proper noun is included in an infobox entry, it should be capitalized whether the infobox entry itself is in title case or in sentence case. Therefore, Wikipedia's wiseapread, established use of sentence case is not endangered by the close.

What is more, the argument that the status quo should be "titles in lower case in infoboxes", when this is neither empirically true nor based on any explicit statement on policy, seems like an attempt to assume the thing to be proven. The question of the RfC was, should certain titles be capitalized in infoboxes, that is, does the community agree that the policy that some have argued should prohibit capitalization of these titles actually apply to those cases. There was no policy-based consensus on this question, but the fact that two-thirds of editors argued in one way or other than the interpretation of policy that would prevent capitalization was applying that policy outside its appropriate scope, should not simply be ignored. In fact, if anything I would think that the argument for limited scope is well-grounded in WP:CONSENSUS policy. Newimpartial (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Wikipedia capitalizes proper nouns so, if a proper noun is included in an infobox entry, it should be capitalized whether the infobox entry itself is in title case or in sentence case. Yes, but it is an established guideline (MOS:JOBTITLE) that job titles are not proper nouns and should be lowercase when modified. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial, The argument that the status quo should be "titles in lower case in infoboxes", when this is neither empirically true nor based on any explicit statement on policy. The closer themselves disagrees with you on this. From the close: The first problem that will emerge with this close is that the opposition to no caps consisted largely of WP:VAGUEWAVEs or non-policy arguments like "looks weird" while supporters of no caps consistently argued a guideline, MOS:JOBTITLE, and offered efficient surrebuttals to each rebuttal advanced. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think Chetsford's RfC close is decent, and he is correct in stating that In this case we have one-thirds of editors arguing that MOS:JOBTITLE is controlling and... two-thirds... [arguing] that JOBTITLE is not controlling. Arguing the non-applicability of a policy is, in my opinion, equivalent to arguing for an alternate policy. A 'no consensus' close in this case means the titles should stay capitalized in the infoboxes (see the infoboxes for Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Boris Johnson etc. for example). (Note: I participated in the RfC.) Some1 (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this is a GF request for review by Tartan357 and support uninvolved editors carefully reviewing the close and considering the points Tartan357 has made here. While I stand by the close, this was a difficult RfC and it's well within the realm of possibility I read it incorrectly. Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Chestford, could you help us understand what tipped you over into 'no consensus'? Much of your closing statement uplifts the JOBTITLES argument and challenges the capitalization crew's points. Which pro-capitalization policy arguments were convincing to you? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Unless editors feel strongly otherwise, I'd prefer to let the closing statement stand on its own so that the review isn't muddied with what could be construed as after-the-fact rationalizations by me. I'm not sure it would be fair to Tartan357 if I started offering advanced explanations here and it's probably best if the close is reviewed as written, otherwise it's not really a review of the close. Again, though, if several editors feel strongly otherwise, I'll revisit this. Chetsford (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  I am not ultra-familiar with the procedure here, having only read WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Is it frowned upon to explain the closing statement?

  If so, I suppose an alternate framing of my question is: do you stand by a statement that summarizes the discussion by saying

  "opposition to no caps consisted largely of WP:VAGUEWAVEs or non-policy arguments like "looks weird" while supporters of no caps consistently argued a guideline, MOS:JOBTITLE, and offered efficient surrebuttals to each rebuttal advanced."

  but then decides on no consensus? It is difficult for uninvolved editors to understand what led to the tie when all the points are awarded to one side. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC) - partial strike 02:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Nothing is written in stone, however, I read the precept that close review is to review "the outcome stated by the closing editor" as meaning the purpose here is to review the outcome as stated in the close, which precludes after-the-fact corollaries or supplements. "It is difficult for uninvolved editors to understand what led to the tie when all the points are awarded to one side." In this case, I would think an uninvolved editor would want to !vote to overturn the close and relist. I will say one thing, however, which is that I think a "tie" is fundamentally different than "no consensus". A tie implies all things are equal while "no consensus", in my mind, recognizes that objections which are both widespread and legitimate will remain unaddressed if a definitive conclusion is applied. Chetsford (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC); edited 02:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  I find that position to be rational, though personally frustrating. Thank you for your guidance. I'll think on it, and I hope to see some opinions from uninvolved editors/admins. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

  Responding to your point about my "tie" comment: I've struck that portion. I was using the language as a flippant analogy, and don't think it represents your close, or my own points, very well. Apologies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the RFC question was quite clear. I'm no fortune teller, but I know of a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes' of their respective country's political offices. Take a look around, the status quo in the infoboxes are clearly uppercasing with or without ordinals. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• There is a discretionary element to closing a discussion, when deciding: adherence to policy through the strength of arguments and, more tabouli, also numbers (shh, don't tell). Sometime, the situation calls for explaining one's reasoning for their close when challenged. Other times, simply letting the close stand in its own right in the course of a review, is a perfectly valid (and smart) thing to do. BTW, I tried reading the discussion, but my eyes glazed over. Couldn't really understand a lick of it. But I'm slow, so... El_C 03:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I can sum it up: some like BIG letters and some like small, but everyone likes painting the bikeshed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Like. El_C 12:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

My take: I have a very particular perspective here. Although I did not participate in the RFC, I am, on the one hand, a staunch defender of MOS:JOBTITLES (see my edit history) and think it is obvious that it requires infoboxes to be rendered in sentence case. In response to Chetsford's observation that In this case we have one-thirds of editors arguing that MOS:JOBTITLE is controlling and... two-thirds... [arguing] that JOBTITLE is not controlling, I would point out first, that in determining consensus, [t]he quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view, and second, that there is no cognizable argument that JOBTITLES permits infoboxes to be rendered in title case. All the arguments offered for that position in the RFC were in fact policy arguments. Tartan357 is therefore correct that the RFC ought to have been closed in favor of sentence casing infoboxes.

On the other hand, in spite of my unwavering allegiance to JOBTITLES, I think, as a matter of policy, that it is a bad idea to render infoboxes in sentence case. In other words, I agree with the policy arguments advanced by the pro-cap camp, even though I believe the anti-cap camp's arguments are actually controlling here. Because I believe the most desirable outcome is actually prohibited by JOBTITLES, I would suggest that an exception to JOBTITLES be established for infoboxes. Of course, any proposal for a modification to JOBTITLES is likely to be met with substantial resistance by editors who, like myself, feel that that guideline is constantly under attack and that without it, Wikipedia would read somewhat like a government press release or a corporate brochure. Editors seeking such an exception should therefore take care to define it narrowly to avoid setting off any slippery-slope alarm bells. Wallnot (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Months ago (can't remember where) as a warning, I predicted that (with WP:JOBTITLES as their excuse) an editor would start pushing for lowercasing in the infoboxes of political offices in bios. But few to none would believe me. At that time already, political offices in bio intros & bio sections & subsection, had been lower-cased. So now it's come to pass, with Tartan357 kicking it off at Joe Biden's article, where I reverted him, we had a little dispute on the talkpage, which led to my opening up the very RFC, that he's now challenging the closure & ruling of. If Chetsford's ruling is overturned? The article titles will be the next target for the lower-case pushers. We'll be seeing Prime Minister of Australia changed to Prime minister of Australia (for example). AFAIK, it's currently not possible to change it to prime minister of Australia, fortunately. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not true, because JOBTITLES explicitly makes a distinction between "President of the United States" and "9th president of the United States", so those defending the application of JOBTITLES in infoboxes wouldn't suggest that change as their next target. No one has suggested lowercasing the first letter of article titles either. That slippery slope is not at all likely to happen, at least not from the same editors. —El Millo (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Write it down on a paper & save it. You'll see, I'm proven right. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Further proof, concerning article titles. See unilateral move of Deputy Prime Minister of Canada to Deputy prime minister of Canada, as an example. Indeed, it's already happening. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The requested move about changing it back to Deputy Prime Minister of Canada already has four Supports specifically citing JOBTITLES, while the only one that cited JOBTITLES to Oppose said he may have to rethink this and is suddenly not so sure. So your prediction is incorrect. If editors start moving these articles to lowercase it'll be against JOBTITLES, not in accordance with it. This is an RM you have participated it, so you must've noticed it. —El Millo (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That unilateral move, is a sign of things to come. If you get this RFC closure overturned in your favour. What are you going to do, when editors in their local political areas start fighting against lowercasing in the infoboxes? Report them all to ANI? All some of you are doing, is stirring up a hornet's nest, merely to get your own way. GoodDay (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Depends how they're "fighting". If they argue with policy-based arguments and logic, then great. That's all being asked here. If they argue with "looks weird", "I don't like it", etc., then they'll just not succeed. —El Millo (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus to lowercase the political offices in the infoboxes, with or without ordinals. Thus RFC closure should stand. You few are only gonna cause a lot of disruption across hundreds of bios. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as "the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". Specifically, the close identified that one side had no policy argument, but then equated non-policy points with "arguing for an alternate policy". I find this to be ill-advised by guideline and best practice.
  In my view, Chetsford accurately analyzed the PAG arguments at play, saying:

  "opposition to no caps consisted largely of WP:VAGUEWAVEs or non-policy arguments like "looks weird" while supporters of no caps consistently argued a guideline, MOS:JOBTITLE, and offered efficient surrebuttals to each rebuttal advanced."

  Chetsford later describes the former group as making "no policy based argument at all." WP:DISCARD is clear about how to deal with the non-policy points: by "discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only...". Instead, Chetsford offers that "Arguing the non-applicability of a policy is, in my opinion, equivalent to arguing for an alternate policy."
  Why is that the case? On this one point rests the entirety of the no consensus close. If generalized, such a position would be damaging to the project. Can any well-reasoned policy argument be defeated by enough "I don't like it"s, simply because they will be construed by the closer as equivalent to policy arguments? This non-explanation of the heart of the close means that the discussion has been unreasonably summarized, and that we therefore have good reason to overturn. I also second Tartan357's points about 'no consensus' pointing in the wrong direction. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Uphold closure - The RFC's closure is quite accurate & correctly judged. The status quo among bios infoboxes of politicians, is capitalisation with or without ordinals. GoodDay (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that there's disagreement over the closure, is itself proof of there being no consensus & thus we maintain the status-quo, -capitalisation-. GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, why wasn't Template:Infobox office holder notified of the RFC-in-question's challenge? GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn, echoing Firefangledfeathers. Contrary to what GoodDay says, the "status quo" is what the guideline tells us to do, and the guidelines are clear, despite longstanding practice: first, JOBTITLES is clear that a title preceded by an ordinal is rendered lowercase unless before a name, and headings in an infobox are sentence case, not title case. This is a clear case of if a then b plus if b then c leading to if a then c. Again, I say all this in spite of the fact that I think another RFC should take place in order to establish an exception to JOBTITLES for precisely this purpose. But as the guidelines currently stand, there can be no question that they require the lowercasing of these headings in infoboxes. Wallnot (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The status quo is capitalisation in those infoboxes. Must I present hundreds of political bios, to prove it? GoodDay (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Must I repeat myself? [T]he "status quo" is what the guideline tells us to do, and the guidelines are clear, despite longstanding practice.}

• Comment – I think the question to answer here is: what exactly is the status quo? Is it what the guideline says should be done, or is it what's usually done? —El Millo (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Many question whether or not the guideline calls for lower casing in the political infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I cite Wallnot above: JOBTITLES is clear that a title preceded by an ordinal is rendered lowercase unless before a name, and headings in an infobox are sentence case, not title case. This is a clear case of if a then b plus if b then c leading to if a then c. This is all included in the guidelines. There's no need for it to be explicitly stated that it applies to political infoboxes. It should be explicitly stated if political infoboxes were an exception to the rule. If you want for that to be explicitly stated, argue for it. —El Millo (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You (and a small number of editors) can't force the community to accept what you think is right. Drop the challenge to the RFC closure & move on. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop treating this as some kind of war. Just argue in favor of your position instead of trying to paint the other side as if they were "forcing" others to abide by their wishes. I still haven't made up my mind about whether the close was correct or not. The guideline says one thing, common practice in these articles isn't in line with the guideline. Which of these is the status quo, I'm not sure yet, until either side convinces me. —El Millo (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I've contacted seven high profile bios, directing them to this discussion. It's best that some editors out there, know what could potentially happen to the bios they frequent, without their input. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: My attempt to convince you: the status quo must be what the guideline says to do, not what is commonly done despite what the guidelines say, because to do otherwise would be to make the guidelines meaningless. If the status quo were based on what is commonly done, then any editor who wants to avoid a guideline's application to a specific article could simply contest it and, when the parties failed to reach a consensus, the false "status quo" would remain in place. This is, incidentally, exactly what DuncanHill tried to do to me with an even more straightforward application of JOBTITLES to the Home Secretary article, apparently hoping that I'd go away or back down before a much more experienced editor. I raised that procedural point there, and I raise it again here, because to do otherwise allows small groups of editors to sabotage the application of clearly established guidelines simply by refusing to agree, even where (as here) they offer no real arguments in favor of their position.

Just as a side note, I believe the guidelines should actually be changed to reflect GoodDay's wishes, because a) it looks better and b) (and this is the dispositive factor, because so many argue (a) in favor of eliminating JOBTITLES altogether) contrary to the application of JOBTITLES elsewhere, capitalizing the headings in an infobox is not contrary to established practice in academia and journalism (capitalizing titles when they do not precede a title is contrary to that practice). I argue in favor of overturning the RFC result nonetheless because it is a bad idea to put in place a consensus that expressly contradicts a guideline without bothering to change that guideline. Wallnot (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse It's a bikeshed, as Johnuniq points out above, so we will almost never have true consensus on aesthetic choices. This is why MOS is a guideline. There was overwhelming support for capitalization, that simply cannot be ignored, and if this were a discussion on creating a new policy we would be on the verge of consensus. That said we already have a guideline stating the opposite, and participants in opposition point to it. While it is a prior consensus, consensus can change and a 28 to 14 margin is pretty good evidence that sentiments have shifted (this is what I understand Chetsford as meaning by "arguing for an alternate policy"). For various reason's it's not a good idea to rewrite guidelines based on a tangential discussion, and so given the combination of numerical support vs guideline-base opposition, no consensus was a good call. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, did you read my complaint? I didn't contest the no consensus close, I contested that no consensus close creating something new rather than referring back to the existing guideline. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  What they wrote seems to agree with you apart from that. Wallnot (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  If anything I think Chetsford was too conservative, as I see consensus that MOS:JOBTITLE doesn't apply in this case. I assumed you don't want the outcome of this discussion to be "overturn to consensus to capitalize", so I was willing to accept the close as-is and let everyone fight it out another day. I still think that, and even if I were to buy into "no consensus" I still think the close is fine. "No consensus" means "no consensus", it doesn't mean the minority wins. You can't just ignore that editors disagree with your interpretation of policy by a 2:1 margin. It's a manual of style, not WP:V, so it's hard to believe that we should just ignore a supermajority of editors so that we can uphold a guideline that the same supermajority of editors don't think applies. Consensus is not a vote, but neither is it minority tyranny. Editors use capitals, many editors want to keep using capitals, the RfC was literally asking whether we should "keep using" capitals, it makes sense for the close to say we can keep using capitals. We shouldn't go rewriting policy based on the discussion, but clearly it's within reason for a closer to say "keep doing what the RfC presupposes you are already doing". — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, I objected to the "keep using" framing of the RfC question, upon which Chetsford based their close. I thought I made that clear in my complaint here. The status quo in the MoS is lowercase, and a no consensus close must default back to that. Otherwise, the whole consensus process is undermined. Wallnot put it well: If the status quo were based on what is commonly done, then any editor who wants to avoid a guideline's application to a specific article could simply contest it and, when the parties failed to reach a consensus, the false "status quo" would remain in place. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm aware. I suggest you read our policy on consensus particularly the sections on WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, WP:CCC, and WP:NOCONSENSUS. Note that despite you saying we must do what you want, the actual policy on consensus only says "commonly", so even if I believed you were right (I don't) nothing says we have to do whatever the minority position wants in a no consensus discussion. Anyway, I'm not particularly worried about undermining the consensus process; I believe it is robust enough to withstand the repurcussions of wrongly capitalizing the word "president". — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  You can disagree with my conclusion, but please don't mischaracterize my position as we have to do whatever the minority position wants in a no consensus discussion. I'm saying that in this difficult choice between the de facto and MoS status quos, we should go with the MoS. Which Chetsford has agreed is a reasonable position to take, and one worthy of discussion, even though they chose not to take it themselves. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Did you read WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CCC? — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  I would add that the stakes here are not wrongly capitalizing the word "president"; unlike in other JOBTITLES contexts, here there is not really a right or wrong answer. The stakes are allowing a no-consensus RFC to revert to a status quo plainly contradicted by existing guidelines, rather than requiring the consensus for capitalizing infoboxes to go through the proper channel, i.e., amend the guideline. You yourself acknowledged the procedural issue here: For various reason's it's not a good idea to rewrite guidelines based on a tangential discussion[.] Wallnot (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  There's no consensus that the guideline applies that's literally what no consensus means The discussion was whether the guideline applies in this case, multiple editors made very clear arguments that it does not, there was no consensus that it applies, now you want us to enforce the claim that it does? Am I getting this all right? That's absurd. I'm quite tired of this. I've explained myself clearly and explicitly said I see consensus. A widely attended multi-week RfC on the talk page of the MOS in question is the proper channel to change a guideline and I regret trying to be diplomatic in my phrasing. One of the various reasons is that people will complain in a close review, but clearly we're past that point. The other is that "consensus to rewrite policy" and "consensus to do something" are different things. We do lots of stuff that's not in policy, and we do lots of stuff that's outright contradictory to policy (it's our fifth pillar in fact). If you insist that the only possible outcome of a no consensus close is to follow the MOS (a position which I've shown is inconsistent with the policy literally titled "Consensus"), I'll change my bolded opinion to "overturn to consensus to capitalize" since I've already explained that I personally see consensus. If however, you believe there are alternate possibilities, why am I still being badgered? I've explained quite clearly, with policy citations, why a close stating the status quo was capitalization is perfectly reasonable. If you disagree, then engage with my main points instead of just my last sentence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm going to point out that a crux of this problem is that the {{Infobox officeholder}} is setup in a manner specifically to conflate the JOBTITLE problem - the |office= is a standalone parameter (lacking the ordinal number) indicating the office title and thus per JOBTITLE would be capitalized, but when |order= is added, that parameter value is added before the office title, and subsequently transforms (in the context of JOBTITLE) that title into just the office, and would be uncapitalized. It would be better if in the presentation of the infobox that the order param was placed after the office param (eg "President of the United States (42nd)") which would resolve nearly all of the issues raised in the RFC. But as it stands, given that the infobox documentation represents the practice, that is the status quo, and the close seems proper. I just think that there's a far simpler way of making everyone happy that could be done in exactly one edit. --Masem (t) 00:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. I have to agree with Tartan that MoS represents the status quo here. Personally, I have never been a fan of MOS:JOBTITLES, but it remains the community endorsed consensus here. Therefore, MOS:JOBTITLES should be controlling in this instance of a no-consensus close. Counterintuitively though, I think that if Chetsford simply said there was consensus for Option A, and that MOS:JOBTITLES would be amended to reflect that consensus, then there would probably be less of a problem. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If you go through all the political bios infoboxes with ordinals, you'll see that JOBTITLES definitely 'does not' represent the status quo. GoodDay (talk) 06:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, GoodDay, but this remains a non-point. The fact that we do something different from what the MOS says to do on one/some/many/most pages does not negate what the status quo of the MOS is. Chetsford found no consensus to change the MOS, so we should revert to the status quo of the MOS. That means: no exception for infoboxes, our Manual of Style applies everywhere (in article space), ergo modified jobs/titles should be lower case. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As you can tell, both 'here' & at the closed-RFC. There's obviously no consensus on whether or not infoboxes are exempted by the MoS-in-question. Thus the status quo remains - capitalized. Otherwise, why is the closure of the RFC being challenged? GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, there's no consensus on whether or not infoboxes are exempted by the MoS-in-question. Thus, the status quo remains: uncapitalized. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

There's disagreement on what the status quo is. But, you're free to look around all the bios-in-question on this project, concerning this topic. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I don't disagree with that. Just spot checking Ned Lamont shows that this is true. However, there is a difference between current practice and the policy status quo. When there is a conflict, the latter takes precedence even if we disagree with it. Mind you, I'm not going to go out of my way to enforce a consensus I disagree with, but I'm not going to stop someone else from doing it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Uphold, or change to consensus in favour. The status quo is clearly that capital letters are used, a situation where tens of thousands of articles have to be changed is not a status quo. I also strongly disagree with the closer's comments, restated by some here, that expressing a stylistic preference is an invalid comment in an RfC about how to interpret the manual of style. There was a 2-1 weight against OP's position, enforcing it against the wishes of the community would simply result in a differently worded RfC with the same outcome. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - @Chetsford: What I'm getting out of the whole challenge thing, is that your closure message was 'confusing'. Are you stating that we lower case political offices with ordinals, in the infobox or are you saying that we keep them capitalized? GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm saying there is no consensus, therefore, we continue with the status quo. In this case, it is unclear what the status quo is: a status quo of custom (capitalized) or a status quo of code (uncapitalized). Because the construction of the RfC ("keep" capitalized) was not widely objected by either side in the RfC, all sides effectively signaled their agreement that — regardless of outcome — the status quo was capitalization. Therefore, we should keep political offices with ordinals in infoboxes capitalized. Chetsford (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, that this entire topic is still being debated, reveals a disconnect in WP:JOBTITLES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

This is contentious enough that I have no problem with a long debate. I think this review is particularly well formulated as it generally agrees there is no consensus and hinges, instead, on what exactly the status quo is: code or custom. This was a question it took me about five minutes of staring at the screen to answer when I originally closed it and it was only the invocation of the word "keep" in the proposal, and the lack of widespread objection to that word's presence, that resulted in a finding of 'no consensus - capitalize' versus what was very nearly 'no consensus - don't capitalize'. That said, I am not enthusiastic about this close, though I don't think there's any possible close I would have been happy about. Chetsford (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with the general principle that "no consensus" means "no change to the status quo", but ...

I don't think that "no consensus" is a valid outcome when - by the closer's own admission - one side of the argument (for caps) consisted largely of non-policy opinions, while the other side (no-caps) consisted of appeals to MOS guidelines. Surely by WP:NHC most of the caps arguments should have been discarded because they "contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only", which would have given a substantial majority to the no-caps argument.

The idea of closing with "no consensus, so just carry on ignoring MOS:JOBTITLES in a large number of articles" just strikes me as wrong. If JOBTITLES is "wrong" (in the sense that a large majority apparently disagree with it, or at least think it should not apply in these cases, and ignore it) then surely we should fix JOBTITLES. Perhaps one of the many people who apparantly think JOBTITLES is wrong, or needs clarifying to explicitly cover infoboxes, should raise a discussion on WT:MOSBIO to change JOBTITLES to more accurately reflect the apparent "status quo" in infoboxes. (I'm in the "no-caps" camp myself, so I'm not going to propose changing JOBTITLES.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Such an RFC was already had at WT:MOSBIO. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Government bio infoboxes, should they be decapitalized or not. (if you were referring to a different RFC, please link to it) was whether to change the infoboxes on article pages, not whether to change the guideline MOS:JOBTITLES. I'm suggesting that a discussion be had to explicitly change the wording of the guideline. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

One specific reason as to why we might want to change the guideline is that MOS is where editors should be able to look to find out what the current rules are. In a few months time, editors are not going to hunt through talk pages and RFCs (nor should they have to do their own surveys of existing articles) to find out whether to capitalise something - they will (or should) look at MOS, in particular JOBTITLES to find out what the rule is. MOS should reflect the consensus of how we do things; if it does not, we should update it so it does. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

Insofar as I can tell, 3-4 editors who were not involved in the original discussion, to varying degrees, support reopening the RfC while two uninvolved editors oppose reopening it. As the original closer, I would like to signal my support for the close to be reconsidered by a committee of three uninvolved editors who will examine it based on the disposition of !votes at the time of the original closing. This reconsideration could be (a) limited to an examination of what actually constitutes the status quo (caps or no caps), accepting the no consensus close, or, (b) unlimited. Chetsford (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

There still is disagreement of what the status quo is. Some have argued that WP:JOBTITLES already calls for lower-casing (debatable) with ordinals in infoboxes. While others have argued that upper-casing with ordinals in infoboxes, is already (un-debatable) established throughout Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Clarification: I plan to discretionarily self-revert the close shortly as implicitly permitted to the closer under WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. The above suggestion is what someone might request at WP:RFCLOSE if they were to so choose. (I think anything less than a committee closure at this point will be unsustainable.) Chetsford (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

New close request posted in this section. I encourage involved/interested editors and admin to review my posting for neutrality. I am happy to tweak the listing as needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Perhaps deleting the ordinals from these bio infoboxes, is the answer. It would certainly end this uppercase/lowercase argument. Would recommend inviting WikiProject country members to discuss this idea. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Someone please close this

I know nobody wants to close this, but would a kind admin please take on the job? I know it will go to DRV no matter how it is closed, but it needs to be closed. I would do it but I participated.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin?

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have look. El_C 14:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I did the thing. El_C 14:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Legend has it that if you say DRV 5 times in front of a mirror, your soul gets overturned. El_C 02:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Forget you all, then! I'm moving to Commons (again), where my brand of stupid is still a novelty. And where I'm extra-beloved. El_C 11:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

User is accusing me of taking over someone else's account.

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

---

If you are a newcomer, you should start your own account, not take over one that has existed since 2008! I've already "bitten" you on a couple of articles because of that. WQUlrich (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A user has posted a strange message on my talk page.Tzim78 (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

On your userpage you responded to a templated warning with a comment that contained the link Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers[16]. I think that comment may have been a tongue in cheek response to a 12 year user claiming the privilege of a newcomer. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

That was my first time trying to edit an infobox and using the comment system for voting. The WQUlric is also chaotically changing some of my Wikipedia edits without proper references.Tzim78 (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay I assumed they were being facetious but it seems they are serious. Not really sure how to react to this one. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Well it is odd that someone with 4000 edits and an account since 2008 would describe themselves as a "newcomer", but on the other hand, the majority of their edits have come since April of this year - before that they were very sporadic. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In the context of the relevant comment, it's worth pointing out that they've made only a handful of edits - ever - outside the main namespace, and obviously none regarding an RfC. Though I'd agree that pointing to WP:AGF would have been a better response, I'm not seeing any significant discontinuities in editing here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ironically, after 4000 edits and 50 pages created, no one has said thank you. I appreciate badges.Tzim78 (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I put on my good faith cap, and left you some cookies as a very belated welcome. FWIW I do not see evidence of an account switch, and your additions appear consistent since 2020 (when your uptick of contributions started and you first created new aricles). Now, I may be missing something here, as I only spent some time here, I would suggest that WQUlrich pony up evidence of what they are claiming or alternatively assume good faith.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I was serious, and not just because of that one comment. As for my "chaotic" changes, they mostly involve restoring information he deleted, deleting irrelevant information, correcting grammar, and making his sentences follow one another in a logical order (not to mention correcting some plain old mistakes). In short, his edits do not strike me as having come from someone who has been editing since 2008 and claims to be a native speaker of English. He actually admits it's his first time editing an infobox. Anyway, whether I'm right or wrong is moot at this point, really. I hope he lets my present edits stand (and be changed by someone else, if they really need to be). I will assiduously avoid making any more to articles I didn't create, and be hesitant about the ones I did. WQUlrich (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

PS: I'm not questioning the "good faith" of his edits...they simply seem very much like the work of a newcomer who is not what he claims to be on his User page. And I want to assure you, I'm not the sort of person who deletes or changes edits "just because". I'm seriously concerned about whether something is an improvement or not. WQUlrich (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

PPS: We both seem to be creating articles based on the red links in Heptanese School. After completing the one I'm working on, I shall defer. WQUlrich (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I am confused, but I think that User:WQUlrich is confused. WQU posted a multi-part message to my user talk page, resulting in a large number of email notifications, but I looked to my talk page and saw nothing, and then found that they had deleted it (which would have resulted in the last of the email notices). It isn't clear what they are saying, except that they seem to think that User:Tzim78 has taken over someone else's account. It appears to me and to Pawnkingthree that what Tz has done is to increase the regularity of their editing. They are also citing BITE in their own defense, which is undesirable, but does not seem as undesirable as panicking because an editor has started editing more often. Maybe someone should explain something, but maybe WQU should exhale and stop running in circles. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Another concern

Ok, so I just spent some time in their edit history, and though I do see a bit of a topic switch from music to art and greek-related topics among other things. I found edits which make me think this is likely the same person.

However, what I also found, causes possible concerns about socking.

User:Demetri music - Check out the edits in that page history. Then look at this- the first edit to User:Tzim78.

This could be totally benign. But we don't know what we don't know. Are there possibly other socks? - jc37 10:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

User Demetri music's only contributions were four edits to their user page nearly ten years ago. Tzim78's user page created in 2009 claims to be a person with the same pseudonym as Demetri Music - that's fine, editors who aren't under sanctions are allowed to abandon an account and start a new one. Tzim78 also updated their user page in 2011, 2014-2015, and 2020, adding and updating a list of topics they were working on which included music, art, and Greek topics. In 2021 they removed their info about Demetri Music from the user page but maintained the list of topics, and those are the same topics they've been editing since. I don't see any evidence here of an account takeover and plenty of evidence that one person has been using this account since at least 2009. There is no reason to continue casting aspersions about this user under the guise of an "investigation", and especially no reason to accuse them of sockpuppetry because they had a pretty clearly disclosed and perfectly legitimate alternate account a decade ago. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I indicated pretty much the same thing above, as far as their edits. My concern at this point is about potential socking. As I said above, "...This could be totally benign. But we don't know what we don't know..." - An explanation from the editor could be helpful. - jc37 20:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to further investigate the possibility of socking based on the benign use of another account 10+ years ago for 4 edits to their userspace, which only got brought to our attention thru a good-faith-but-weird accusation they hijacked an account, which appears to be groundless. This all must feel fairly Kafkaesque to Tzim. Instead of asking them more questions, I think this needs to be closed, with a "sorry" to Tzim, and a "that's too serious an accusation to make without a reasonable amount of evidence, and you owe Tzim an apology" to WQUlrich. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

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

WP:RFPP

New user has listed about 30 pages for protection. Page needs to be cleaned up. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be already handled, new user turned out to be a sock. –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

K (lol) Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Editor's concern removed from noticeboard

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

---

Quote from the previous noticeboard discussion “PLUS ULTRA CARLOS's concern about a block”, originally “Inappropriate block or not - Persisting lack of block explanation - Potential WP:ADMINABUSE ?”:

“The following is inserted as the section lead and right after the entry it is also intended to, to ensure the reader understands the purpose of this discussion and facilitate the target of any upcoming comment, if any. Many thanks.

On August 28, an administrator bold changed the original title of this section from “Inappropriate block or not - Persisting lack of block explanation - Potential WP:ADMINABUSE ?” to “PLUS ULTRA CARLOS's concern about block”, alleging “neutral section title”. However, the original section name, actually a question (“?”), was indeed already neutral showing the precise object of the discussion that follows, i.e. the problematic in regards to administrators' potential misuse of their privileges which has been raised in this forum for the records and Wikipedia community to consider.

The new title, to be neutral, should then include the names of the administrators involved, but naming any or all the parties involved is neither the real question or useful for the discussion purpose. The new title actually hides the true discussion objet and negatively affects the general interest of Wikipedia users to quickly identify the issue at stake as raised by another user which basically is the following: Is a block for edit-war still necessary and in compliance of WP rules and practice after a warning has been addressed to the blocked user by another administrator and no more action against the warning or any other WP rule has been done by said user?

In this sense, much neutral, appealing, to-the-point title could be “BLOCKING A WARNING-COMPLIANT EDITOR?” or similar to really identify the underlying problem to discuss while it does not refer to a specific user's problem but to any block after any user complies with any warning whatsoever.

Any reader of the discussion hereunder will notice that, most probably due to inadvertent, no administrator has to date addressed the above real question which is of utmost general interest for Wikipedians as a whole, both for editors and administrator's expected conduct and accountability. Both the block or the appeal decisions seem to neglect the question, specially the latter despite having been clearly indicated in the appeal and lacks of due explanation. That's why the user's legitimate concerns are brought to this forum. That's why any other consideration, i.e. comments about the block in relation to user's behavior or doings in the concerned article or elsewhere; comments on the article features and alike are dodging the actual issue as clearly (and neutrally) identified by the former section title and by the user. This noticeboard is to address matters of general administrator interest not for a user's specific problem and related administrator's viewpoints. That's why any editor/administrator interested in participating in this discussion is kindly requested to help improving Wikipedia by focusing on and addressing the questions of general interest for administrators raised and avoid comments not directly related to them. To help an user becoming a better one, use the proper place, i.e. his/her talk or WP:ANI when necessary. Thank you very much to all.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)” End quote

The previous quoted comment was removed ten minutes later by an administrator claiming it was misplaced and disruptive, leading another administrator - reasonably not having noticed the removed comment and request - to close the discussion.

The main issues brought to this forum is to consider if:

1. May editors' legitimate concerns be removed from the noticeboard (or anywhere else, i.e. a talk)?

2. Can legitimate concerns qualify as disruptive?

3. Even if some content may be perceived as disruptive, should the administrator place the easily identifiable legitimate concerns (even with his/her own words) to a “better place”, i.e. at the bottom of the thread to allow the discussion continuation and avoid an early closing?

4. To claim disruption, shall administrators take extreme care (providing explanation of what content is considered disruptive) at the noticeboard (or anywhere else) in compliance with “Responding thoughtfully » and « Critiquing with guidelines and policies » ( WP:ATPD ) or other applicable WP rules or conduct principles?

5. If against any of the above, is the administrator's removal action disruptive, abusive or else?

6. Is the closing of the discussion 1 day after (a Sunday) the last discussion post in compliance with WP rules and practice, specially considering that the concerned editor could not yet replied to some serious assertions against him/her, i.e. continuing to claim vandalism at different stages after being warned?

7. Which would be the remedies?

Many thanks to all. --PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

You made your points at extreme length farther up the page, and nobody found anything that supported your claim of admin abuse. You appear to be trying to relitigate that closure in another tl:dr fashion. It's not clear what you want, apart from another lengthy discussion about perceived wrongs. That you are unsatisfied with the way it was handled is not a basis for continued complaint. Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and what you may view as legitimate concerns may not be seen as such by other editors and administrators. So the answers, as far as I can tell are:

• Q1: Yes, if they're in the wrong place or inappropriately expressed as what may amount to personal attacks.
• Q2: Yes, if they are extremely verbose or poorly presented or unsupported by evidence.
• Q3: Yes. Noticeboards are managed, and misplaced posts may be moved so they make chronological sense.
• Q4: Yes, but responding administrators are not obligated to explain at extreme length, or to the sole satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to set the terms under which they are satisfied.
• Q5: No, if done in good faith when the title clearly overstates the actual evidence.
• Q6: There is no set term, and threads are frequently closed within a much shorter time when the issue is obviously resolved.
• Q7: Are you still looking for somebody's scalp? Acroterion (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@PLUS ULTRA CARLOS: There is a recently closed section above with 3000 words already devoted to this topic. A hint about the answer to Q7 is that repeated wasting of other people's time eventually results in sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Guidance on carrying a request for unblocking

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

---

to this board which I think is a waste of time, but I don't want to be perfunctory. It feels wrong to not bring it here, but Skiyomi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I keep vacillating. The further I get drafting the thing, the dumber I feel. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

For this user? Don't waste your time. I HIGHLY doubt the community will welcome them back. RickinBaltimore (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Good WP:NOTHERE block. Miniapolis 22:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There is zero chance of an unblock in this case due to the massive abuse heaped on Wikipedians from this former editor. Posting an appeal would just be a waste of everyone's time and feed in to Skiyomi's need for attention.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks y'all. I feel the same way. Anyone with a positive outlook, please share, but I think I see a consensus forming. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Deepfriedokra, not so much a "positive outlook"; more a query. The last non-admin-viewable interaction was a block-clock-reset in December 2020 with a note to specify it was a restart of the 6-month standard offer. That 6-month period would seem to be over (and then some). If there is no desire to maintain that offer, perhaps that should be made clear? St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Scratch that - the editor was using a sock-puppet account to post an unblock request on their own former talk page in June this year. Never mind. Carry on. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Stalwart111: Thanks. Way passed an SO at this point. What? Wait! Where? - --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

And MAY! She lied to me! Yeah leaving open for any comments, but give me a break. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

In fact, that username emailed you, and then posted on your talk page apologising for sending an all-caps email. And then was promptly sock-blocked. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Just to note that this user is globally locked. [17] Does that need to be appealed first (at Meta), as if the appeal against the lock is unsuccessful it makes any block appeal fairly pointless? --Jack Frost (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user

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

---

I would like to report user Akosiyavre (talk · contribs), who has been deleting chunks of articles since 2017, without any edit summary or apparent reasoning. Even sourced quality content is randomly deleted. This users talk page is a very long list of warnings. --Glennznl (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Indeffed by Materialscientist who acted on a report at WP:AIV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

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

Administrator changes

Jake Wartenberg

Emperor • Viridian Bovary

Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

• Feedback is requested on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement draft by the Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee.
• A RfC is open on whether to allow administrators to use extended confirmed protection on high-risk templates.
• A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
• A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.

Technical news

• The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is in progress to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. Comments and new proposals are welcome.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 RfA review is now open for comments.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip - Appeal of T-Ban Extention

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

---

Starting at the beginning, Before March 2, I was extremely disruptive on Wikipedia, creating stupid articles and doing stupid edits. All of that compiled together and earned me a 6 month Post 1992 T-Ban on US Political articles. During my T-Ban, I unfortunately violated the t-ban a couple of times. My T-ban was set to expire today, when Cullen328 told me it was extended 6 months due to the violations of the t-ban. I am here to appeal the extension only because after further discussion with Cullen, he said "these sanctions are for the purpose of preventing disruption of the encyclopedia." and I would like to prove that I am not disruptive, but in fact attempting to help Wikipedia.

I will start off by addressing each of my T-Ban violations and explaining them more in-depth. Please note, I do understand each of these and accept that I shouldn't have made the edit due to the T-Ban. For timeline - T-Ban began March 2.

1. My first violation was on March 23, adding a PROD to Nicholas A. Jones. As you can tell, the article no longer exists. I was patrolling new pages and saw an article of what appeared to be a "CEO" of a burger joint. I failed to notice that the bottom of the article had "...ran for election to the US House for the First Congressional District of Idaho. He lost in the primary on June 2, 2020." which added the article and him into my T-banned articles. I understand that I shouldn't have made that PROD nomination, but in the end, that edit was to help Wikipedia (Since the article did get deleted due to notability concerns). I consider this a "Good" violation edit.
2. The next violation was on March 31, but to my user page. Back then, I believed that I had "status" when showing that news articles had mentioned me. Well, one was about my pre-tban edits (From October 2020) and I foolishly added it to my userpage. Shouldn't have done that and as you can see on my user page now, I no longer contain remarks related to news articles about me. I do consider this a bad edit...but not disruptive to Wikipedia.
3. My next T-Ban violation was on May 10, on the Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack, where I added "and declared a state of emergency" to the article after Joe Biden declared a state of emergency over attack. I shouldn't have made this edit at all, however, in my book and to how I believe everyone else see's it, that was not disruptive to Wikipedia, and to just state the fact, that exact part about the state of emergency being declared still exists in the article today. Even though I shouldn't have made the edit, I do consider this a "Good" violation edit as it was not disruptive to Wikipedia.
4. My next T-Ban violation was also on May 10, but on the 2021 Colorado Springs shooting article. An Afd happened on the article, and after all speedy-keep votes against the nominators delete !vote, I speedy closed it. After that, I discovered on the talk page that the article was put under the Post-1992 US Politics Ban. (Side note, there isn't any Politics in the article, so could someone actually explain why that tag is still there?) I went to Rosguill and apologized for my edit. I consider this a bad edit...but not disruptive.
5. My next T-Ban Violation was on May 19, on Ty Bollinger. Due to the articles status, I shouldn't have ever edited the article, though I was extremely surprised to discover that a Post-1992 T-Ban of US Politics includes YouTube channels spreading COVID-19 misinformation. So I learned that lesson. I Consider this a bad edit...but not disruptive since the edits was about his YouTube channel being suspended, and that information still exists in the article today.
6. My last T-Ban violation before my 2 month editing break was on June 2, where a redwarn auto thing happened (I still don't understand how), when I was looking at a users edit history for a book I was writing. The problem escalated with me faking being hacked and all that. I do consider this a bad situation and this was disruptive to Wikipedia. Though, I did serve my blocked time of a week over the incident + I went on a two month editing break I took after that.
7. I came back to editing on August 24, and I created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Twenty-Tens decade, which I proposed back in May. Though, I ended up started Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan–United States relations, which is a clear violation of my t-ban, however, not disruptive to Wikipedia. User:Fram told me on my talk page about that article being a violation and I stopped editing the article. I do consider this article to be a "Bad" edit, but not disruptive on Wikipedia.

So yes, I made 7 edits over the last 6 months that violated my t-ban, however, only one of them was actually disruptive to Wikipedia. All the others were helpful to Wikipedia. I am not appealing the t-ban in terms of what i did. I clearly deserved a Post-1992 T Ban especially with my edits between October 2020 and March 2021. But I have changed a lot since March 2 when my T-Ban started. I have created just over a dozen new articles, had an article which I created put into ITN, and I correctly proposed and began a WikiProject, which currently has 8 other participates. I don't know how else I can prove that I am not "Disruptive" to Wikipedia. Yes, I violated those t-bans, but after reading what those edits were and how all but one benefitted Wikipedia, I hope you can see that my goal is to grow Wikipedia for the better. Cullen328 said "None of this is punishment" and I agree that it isn't punishment. That said, saying it is "for the purpose of preventing disruption of the encyclopedia" in relation to the t-ban violations I made is wrong. In my eyes, I violated my t-ban 7 times...but six of those times benefited Wikipedia. I shouldn't have every had one violation, but you can't change the past, only the future.

Which is why I am here appealing the extension today. I am not a disruptive editor to Wikipedia, and to be frank, those 6 non-disruptive edits wouldn't have been questions if it wasn't for the T-ban (Which pre-extension expires at 17:57 (UTC) tomorrow. So thank you for reading this painfully long appeal, and seeing how I am not a disruptive editor on Wikipedia, just an editor who made a lot (And I mean a lot) of mistakes in the past and who has the same goal as you in mind...To Benefit and Grow Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(Pings: @El C: - Admin of original t-ban from March | @Valereee: - Wiki Admins I talked to during my t-ban.)

• As you freely acknowledge that you have frequently broken your tban, I'd personally be pleased you only got it extended instead of receiving a block. When you are told to stop editing a topic it means stop editing a topic area. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Astonishingly the first thing I saw on my watchlist after committing the above edit was this post to UT:Fram asking for advice about an email you sent them about a post 1992 AP topic edit. Perhaps you can explain why I shouldn't block you for this breach of your tban and also disclose how many times you have used the email system to circumvent your ban? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I now understand that the violations of the topic ban were far more extensive than I was previously aware of. On their talk page, I encouraged this editor "to consider the downside risks" before appealing here. Less than an hour later, they appealed. So be it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
      • As for the claims about Ty Bollinger above, that person is a Stop the Steal activist, so the connection to the topic ban is glaring and obvious. Editors subject to a topic ban are responsible for reading the entire article and it seems clear that this editor is not doing that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Response to Spartaz: I made a mistake with the email. I was only trying to give advice about how I screwed up in the past, but I ended up hurting myself. For that, I am sorry. Please disregard all advice I gave in that. I am sorry for that email.

Response to Cullen328: (Conflict Edit) I have a lot of respect for you since you helped me in the past when I had questions. I really did consider the risks to the appeal, though my reputation was at state. You called me a disruptive editor, which is your right to. Though, if I really am a disruptive editor, then the edits that still exist in point 3, 5, and the article in 7 needs to be removed/deleted ASAP since they are you know "Disruptive to Wikipedia". If you don't want to remove/delete them, then please, don't call me a disruptive editor. I wasn't appealing anything about what I did in the past. I was appealing the fact you called me a disruptive editor...Actually, I learned from the pasts that I should take the initiative and remove information that violates my tban and/or is disruptive. So should I remove the parts mentioned in point 3 and 5 and start a speedy deletion request for the article in part 7? Please give me guidance. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you answer my question about how many emails you have sent please? I'd also like to understand why you find it so hard to comply with your tban. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I sent 1 email to you explaining how I screwed up and 1 email to Fram asking him for a favor since the Portal of Current Events has a mistake and I wasn't allowed to fix it due to the T-Ban. Also, Appeal withdrawn, so please close this discussion ASAP. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - I think this is probably the tban area that's the toughest to define (it feels like everything in America is politics now) but creating Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan–United States relations on August 24 is a clear and obvious violation. What you didn't mention is that you were still editing said article on August 29. Edit summary here on August 28 smells of pushing the tban envelope. And it looks like all through the tban, you've been violating it off and on. There's just too many violations for me to support tban removal here (it's also not good optics for you to archive the tban warning you got on August 30 right before posting this appeal, as well as removing a discussion on your user talk page from several days before that clearly falls under the tban area). Hog Farm _Talk 04:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Withdrawing Appeal - I do not wish to appeal the 6 month T-Ban extension given to me earlier today. I will take a break with editing, to clear my head from all the problems that arose in the last few days. Sorry for all the problems, please disregard all information presented in the appeal. I hope you all have a good day. (Please note, that I will not respond to any further comments on this appeal until I return from my editing break.) Elijahandskip (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

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

• Just noting for posterity, t-ban extended indefinitely [18] & user was indef'd until they have discussed <their> understanding of what is and is not allowed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Batch of AfD nominations which attracted no participation

There's more than half a dozen AfDs, in the log for August 27, all by the same nominator (Filmomusico), which don't seem to have attracted any attention whatsoever, except from a few unrelated socks.

Now the usual process with AfDs with no participation is either A) to close as soft-delete (if eligible) or B) close as no-consensus due to lack of participation. The rationales seem alright, although they're all exact copies, so I've went for B), but then I realised there's so many of them that it's probably worth asking for a second look. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOQUORUM applies. These need to be evaluated by a closing administrator as expired PRODs (if they haven’t been declined for proposed deletion in the past). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I favor no consensus based on that some of these mass nommed articles were closed as keep or contested, shows the nominator almost definitely didn't conduct representative BEFORE searches Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

What the?

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

---

A bunch of articles just popped up in CAT:CSD that aren't actually nominated for deletion (e.g. Ezetimibe, Temozolomide Urofollitropin). It's probably something obvious, but it's Friday and my capacity for solving mysteries is waning. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ponyo: Maybe one of the templates transcluded onto it got CSD'd without noinclude tags, but I'm not sure dudhhr_Contribs 20:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that would be the case. Haven't all the template CSDs been obsoleted? And Ezetimibe hasn't been edited in a month. Weird. Hog Farm _Talk 20:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The general speedy deletion criteria still apply to templates. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Correct, Template:Merck & Co.. Will probably take a while for the removal to filter through to the category. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Null edits in the articles help, but it is probably easier just to wait a few hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Request semi protection for a recent vandalism

The article Flag of South Vietnam have been vandalized in these days, an user using IP locations from Vietnam pretended to insert some contents for a fake history in the article, this was happened and reverted for more than three times, so I proposed a semi protect to prevent vandalism. --Great Brightstar (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The similar vandal was also happened in List of flags of Vietnam. --Great Brightstar (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Russian politics IP vandal

I have been dealing with this LTA for over two years now, basically reverting, blocking, and revision-deleting. In the last year or so they developed the habit of insulting me in each of their edit summaries. The most recent history is at Alina Kabaeva. Protections would not help, since they would switch to another article out of a large pool and eventually find one which I do not have on my watchlist. We probably need a range block, but the LTA is editing using a major provider in Rostov-on-Don, a city with a million population. Could somebody please estimate whether a range block (for example, using recent edits at Alina Kabaeva and possibly the IP addresses I listed at the LTA page) would lead to a huge collateral damage, and if not, block the range long-term? I am not sure why I have to read this bullshit about me every day.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, looking at this as a non-admin, unfortunately this person is leaping entire /1 blocks every time they edit; it's impossible to craft a rangeblock which will cover even the Alina Kabaeva IP addresses. They also don't seem to return to the same range that often (closest I've found is 46.41.64.0/18 which they came back to after nearly a year, nor do they rangehop when they're editing; they spring up, make their edits, and disappear, reappearing the next day from a totally different range. I'll dig a bit more later, but unless someone else is more effective at rangeblock-fu than I am, it seems that the current tactic of revert & block on sight is going to be the most effective method of tackling this (as edit filters appear to have been ineffective previously). I'm really sorry that you're being targetted in this way. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

No obvious rangeblocks here. How about applying a six-month semiprotection each time an article such as Alina Kabaeva is damaged enough to require revision-deletion? That would at least cut down on his repeat visits to the same article. (There were eight such visits to Alina Kabaeva in 2021). The IPs listed on the LTA page have made no edits in 2021. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I see. Concerning protection, I guess if I protect Alina Kabaeva they would just move to another article which is not on my watchlist, and I lose track of them - meaning their contributions might stay in the article for a longer period.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Checking about a block

I don't issue a lot of blocks except for vandalism so I wanted to bring this situation to admins who can either agree with me or decide I made an error either in being too lenient or too tough. In 2017, Picander Peerage wrote a detailed article, De Beaumont-Spain baronets, that over the years, didn't make much of an impression or receive many edits from other editors except for Martinevans123.

Four years later, they showed up to put a speedy tag on it with the rationale "I made this page years ago to test you. You failed. It’s all fake". I deleted the article as it was a request for deletion by the page creator and blocked the editor from Article space for a year. This block won't have a great deal of an effect because they didn't make a lot of edits but I felt there should be some response for an admitted hoax but it didn't warrant an indefinite block. What do y'all think?

As an aside, this isn't the first mischief I've come across regarding Baronetcies in the U.K., I guess it's an area where scrutiny on Wikipedia is lighter than some other fields. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I would just convert the block to indefinite as vandalism-only account and let the user convince the community they can edit in a non-vandal way.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I must be so gullible. And I feel a bit disappointed that I was taken in by a fake. I'm intrigued as to what my edits were - I can barely remember what I edited four months ago, let alone four years ago. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: All your edits in the article were marked as minor and they were essentially copyediting such as unification of the baronet title which (according to your words) was consistent with the usage elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok, thanks for telling me. That's partially reassuring; I have a vague recollection. I wish I had examined any sources more carefully. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, Martinevans123, I deleted a talk-page article a bit ago that was gnomed by no less than three experienced editors who apparently didn't notice it was a) the user's talk page, and b) completely inappropriate for Wikipedia anyway. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. I now feel only one third of a prat. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• How can the community ever trust this editor again? Every edit of theirs would need to be checked going forward, not just for a certain length of time -- they'd just wait for that time to lapse -- but forever. This user is a burden & a time-sink. If it was more than one article, site ban; since it was just one breaching-experiment article, indeff, per Ymblanter. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, it’s me. Don’t stress yourselves out- it’s not that deep. I now surrender myself to your judgement- do unto me according to thy will.

Your humble servant, Sir Picander Peerage (talk), 11th Bt.

Would you care to apologise? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

They're a troll, probably a sock, trying to make a point. Reminds me of a banned user from WPO who used to do stuff like this. Fun times. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for NOTHERE. We're being trolled, I'm pretty confident in that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I should have indeffed. I guess I was a little impressed with his honesty about what he had done years ago. If he hadn't admitted to writing a fake article, it would still exist on the project. Most trolls aren't so honest, they lie and make excuses, and they don't quote Hamlet on their talk page. I wish he had used his writing skills for good instead of trying to fool Wikipedia. But, you're right, the trust is gone. I'm glad I brought it to this noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if there's any connection with Fawcett baronets! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  Difficult to say, but Fawcett baronets was created four times over the years by socks which are all presumably the same person, and none of whom managed to survive long.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  What I wanted to say is that the profiles of these socks were similar to this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

essensys rangeblock

Last month I blocked 135.84.164.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), an IP range belonging to essensys, a company which provides VPNs for coworking offices, as a colocation host/VPN/open proxy. I discovered after a report that a small sock farm was using it for undisclosed paid editing, and further checks showed that it was being used almost exclusively for spam. Subsequently there was an unblock request and discussion about whether this was an appropriate block on a newly-registered account's talk page, which I would like to bring here for further review. I have copied the relevant discussions on Wolverine1203's and SQL's talk pages below. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: you blocked 135.84.164.0/22 but the range appears to include addresses that are not colocation for websites. Please investigate. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Hm. Based on the data available to me, the ip in question does not appear to me to be a colocation / web host / VPN provider.

Whois | Spur | IPCheck | /24 range resolution | BGP Prefix Search | website

@Joe Roe: is there data that I'm missing? ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 06:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Please look at the CU and contributions for the range. I went for the closest-sounding template so colocation may not be the best word for it, but it belongs to a company that provides a VPN for coworking offices. The result is multiple users from multiple locations in the US sharing the same pool of obscured IPs that geolocate to New York, which I believe violates both the spirit and letter of our proxy policy. With the exception of occasional use by (IIRC) one established editor, it has almost exclusively been used for spam, UPE and sockpuppetry. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Fair enough. At first glance it didn't look very webhost-ey. TY for the explanation. ^{!ɘM γɿɘυϘ}⅃ϘƧ 07:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

So I would argue that that's not really an "open proxy" - it obscures the user's location, sure, but is only available to a fairly restricted set of people. Not saying that there aren't problems on that range (obviously, I don't know which one, just going off of Joe's comment above) but I'm not sure that our proxy policy justifies preemptively blocking that. As a comparison, I'm pretty sure SubjectiveNotability's contribs (often made from my work computer) show up in a different state than where I'm actually editing from, since I think the company routes most traffic through one of the other offices. Doesn't mean anyone is trying to obfuscate anything. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe, I'm inclined to treat this as a corporate ISP rather than a colo and unblock - while it is technically masking the user's location, I don't think it is going to be a source of abuse. Heck, the internet traffic from my office computer comes out in a different state from where I sit, but that doesn't mean my company is trying to hide my location. Is that okay with you? GeneralNotability (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree. We have three separate administrators questioning this block, and it seems that the stated reason for the block in the block log isn't sufficient for blocking this range, in this case. Was there abuse coming from it? If so, can the blocked range be narrowed down? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist: On further discussion (on his talk page, since it seemed inappropriate to continue this on a new users' talk page, but here we are!), SQL dropped his objection, and with respect, neither you or GeneralNotability are checkusers, so you don't have the full picture. Obviously there was abuse coming from the range – why else would I block it? I am a little put out that both of you have assumed that I'm in the habit of making rangeblocks for no reason. – Joe (talk)

@Joe Roe: I apologize that my comment wasn't clear, probably because I wrote it hurriedly. I didn't mean to question whether there was abuse at all, but whether the abuse that was found was necessary to block that range, and whether a smaller range could be blocked to cover the abusive IP addresses to eliminate the collateral damage that started this discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anachronist, SQL, and GeneralNotability: Rather than clog up Wolverine1203's talk page further, I have copied this to AN. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe, my apologies. I do know that you're a CU and might be able to see things I can't, but since colos are usually block-on-sight, I didn't realize there was more to this block; I thought this was just incorrect identification of a colo. If there's CU data involved here, objection withdrawn. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the days of talking about colos and obscuring origins are long over. So, I've taken a look at the CU. I'm still digesting the information and I'm not going to get into whether the range should have some block, but I would definitely change the block reason. Reading the discussion above and using my knowledge of the available templates, I would suggest (if you're going to block it) CU-blocking the range, or range-blocking the range, specifically adding the real reason to the template, and offering IPBE to any collateral. I suspect there's a small amount of sharing and rotation in the range, and I'm still interpreting the other edits (many of which non-CUs can see), however, I do note that there seems to be approximately only two real problem IPs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting admin team for RFC closure at MOSBIO

Could we get a team of uninvolved admins to close WT:MOSBIO#RfC on non-notable pre-transition names of deceased trans people, which is set to expire in a few days. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I can do this at a scale of a week after the expiration date. Will welcome co-closers.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm likely less happy to help than Roy, as I've got my own rather large discussion to ponder, but can sub in in a pinch and/or if absolutely necessary. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I actually had w-pinged myself to keep checking in there, but it got more and more daunting. I've never co-closed before, but if y'all are willing to give me any necessary pointers, happy to help. —valereee (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've only done one of these, but what we did was each of us went off on our own for a day or two to digest the material, then we got back together and compared notes via email. I guess we were lucky in that we were all more or less on the same page and it didn't take long for us to converge. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I have done several in the past. The first thing we need is to establish contact and create an ad-hoc mail thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the topic-in-question. I don't envy the task of those who're going to tackle it. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil conduct on a user page

SkylerLovefist has in the last 24 hours added a remark on his user page that I believe is in violation of WP:POLEMIC. It is a generalised attack on WP users seen here. While user names are not used this is aimed at me, but I am not complaining about that. The complaint is the general conduct in violation of the policy linked. It should be removed in my opinion. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The statement was unacceptable commentary about other contributors. I've removed it and asked the user not to reinstate it. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 10:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A less inflammatory alternative would be to express that you are frustrated with other editors: "I feel frustrated that they would use source A instead of source B", but asking questions about policy and talking about content rather than editors is best MarshallKe (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I notice that Addicted4517 has neglected to mention his own behaviour which includes provoking an edit war, misquoting Wikipedia Policies, intentionally overwriting another valid source and proceeding to use a source which literally quoted the Twitter account he claimed wasn't an accurate source. Perhaps this user would like to learn to work with others before saying other users need to work on their behaviour. SkylerLovefist (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

SkylerLovefist, the statement on your userpage wasn't acceptable, regardless of other editors' behaviour. That said, provided you don't reinstate it, I'd say that matter is resolved. If there's anything that you think needs looking at urgently, you are at liberty to report it. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth SummitIf I was aware of how to do that, I would. And I'm not going to reinstate anything, I'd just like to see him being pulled up on what he did wrong instead of feeling like I'm being ganged up on when Addicted4517 was in the wrong with his edits to start with, and was clearly trying to undermine every edit I made. SkylerLovefist (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: - Thank you for your action. We can consider this particular matter closed. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

SkylerLovefist If you're in a dispute with another editor over content and/or sourcing, you can investigate dispute resolution channels. If it is their conduct that you are worried about - for example if they are making personal attacks or harassing you, you can start a thread at WP:ANI, but be sure to include diffs to provide evidence for the compaint. At the moment, I don't even know what the disagreement is about - I just looked at your userpage, and agreed that the statement you'd made there wasn't appropriate. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 09:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit As seen by the above statement, Addicted4517 seems to be on the understanding his opinions are more important than those of other editors, at least based on my experiences. The issue is that I used Buddy Murphy's Twitter as a source to show he was using a new ringname. Addicted4517 chose to keep undoing my edits while incorrectly referring to Wikipedia Protocols which he claimed proved me wrong while being irrelevant to the situation at hand. Another user provided me some links, I used one, which was then followed by Addicted 4517 undoing THAT edit and using a source whose only citation was Murphy's Twitter, which Addicted4517 claimed wasn't valid which was the cause of the issue in the first place. So in the end, it comes down to Addicted 4517 undermining me, while being hypocritical at the same time, thus my frustration. SkylerLovefist (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I found my way here from a thread at WP:ANI. In a nutshell, SkylerLovefist is using inappropriate sourcing from social media, Addicted4517 removed them per WP:BLP explaining relevant policies on suitable sources and was rewarded with abuse and personal attacks. As far as I can see Addicted4517 has been nothing but helpful and civil to this editor who plainly doesn't understand what a reliable source is. WCM_email 09:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cleaning up stale general sanctions

1. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom was authorised in 2014 and has had exactly zero logged actions in 7 years.
2. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling was authorised in 2018 and has had one TBAN and a couple of page protections, all were 3 years ago.

I'm proposing revoking the authorisation for both these general sanctions. The log evidences that these general sanctions are unused and unnecessary, and we shouldn't have permanent authorisations of unnecessary sanctions. Regular administrative processes could handle any future disruption that arises, as they do for most topic areas. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Sanctions, like blocks and bans, are preventative. The knowledge that sanctions have been authorised and the actual alerts posted on editors' talk pages work to prevent the need for sanctions to be implemented by blocks and bans. If they're working well, you should find, as ProcrastinatingReader has, little sign of their working in the block logs. We no longer log those talk-page alerts either, though it might be possible to extract alerts for specific sanctions from the monthly hundreds of Edit Filter 602 tags. It's all very hard to quantify, so we have to fall back on long memories of previous disruption and also simply accept that the community, after due consideration, made a good decision which shouldn't be jettisoned in a clean-up. NebY (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Units in the UK

• Oppose. Removal of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Units in the United Kingdom was proposed on this noticeboard in April 2020 and the discussion closed as "At this time there is no consensus to lift these sanctions, with a majority opposed. People are concerned that disputes might flare up again if sanctions are removed: Give them an inch and they will take a kilometer ." The effectiveness of the existence of WP:GS/UKU doesn't justify abolition. NebY (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  The words "general sanctions" aren't some kind of magic pixie dust that, when authorised on a topic area, suddenly makes disruption disappear. It's a very real and definable thing; the ability for admins to make topic bans (etc) unilaterally without requiring ANI consensus. Which means any effects of this regime would be logged. Zero actions since the creation of a general sanctions regime (7 years ago!) means it is doing nothing useful. In that discussion you linked, it was said the GS should remain in place due to a then-ongoing MOS discussion related to UK units. Well, that discussion is long since concluded, and unsurprisingly the log remains empty and no sanctions were necessary. The more likely explanation for why there is no ongoing disruption is that the established editors propagating the conflict got bored and quit or went onto something else, same as with many other historical conflicts. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually the main reason is one of the worst offenders is currently indefinitely blocked with talk page and email access removed after they tried to use it to edit by proxy. But I'm sure they'd be back if this were removed. WCM_email 10:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Proc, just a suggestion, perhaps this should be broken into two subheaders, one for each GS, that way it will be easier to tally the outcome. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  Good idea, done. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Also, no user talk page or archive includes the text of the gs alert for this topic area. See this empty search result. The search won't include alerts that have been deleted. Someone more experienced/empowered might find more useful data in the edit filter. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The alerts given predate the existence of the modern template that triggers an edit filter. See the log of alerts as listed at WP:GS/UKU. RGloucester — ☎ 20:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

... where the most recent alert was given in 2018. The evidence suggests (not perfectly) that there are no editors who are currently "aware" enough to sanction, except those sanctioned in the original decision. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The relevant dispute involved a distinct group of editors, most of whom are still present on the encyclopaedia, and all of whom are distinctly aware of these sanctions mentally, if not 'officially'. It is precisely this regime, which took ages to establish, that put the kibosh on more than a decade of disruption. If you want to open Pandora's box again, feel free, but know that that outcome can be avoided. RGloucester — ☎ 20:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You mean the regime that has never been used? Not even in 2014? And heck, general sanctions are barely effective even at combating actual ongoing disruption, so this just comes across as FUD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

If you were not present during that time, it will be hard for you to understand. You might consider reading the old talk page discussions, such as the one that brought about the regime, or asking those present such as Kahastok. But, I think I've said enough. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – Per NebY, these sanctions serve as a valuable deterrent, and it does not harm anyone to keep them around. Everything that was said in the 2020 discussion is still valid now. RGloucester — ☎ 20:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose (not an admin, but believe I'm entitled to give my opinion)- this is sometimes useful as a deterrent to people who want to edit war over units. I've quoted this sanction at least a couple of times in the last few years, so it has some use as a deterrent. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester and Joseph2302.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The sanction was brought in for good reason, after a lengthy discussion and consensus forming to adopt it. The fact that there have been no actions since it was implemented means that the community hasn't need to waste its time on bringing sanctions against editors who ignore them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The problem here is editors systematically flipping units in articles from one system to the other, in attempt to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and use that to change the MOS to favour their POV on measuring systems. For example, if you look at articles on English football players, you will see that most give height and weight data in imperial measures, except for those active in the Premier League in 2011. That is because a single editor spent most of 2011 doing nothing but flipping the units on these articles into their preferred metric system, with no local consensus and directly against the advice of the MOS. They then spent the next few years at WT:MOSNUM trying to change the MOS on the basis of that change.
  This sanction is largely working at eliminating the worst of the disruption here. That said, I took this opportunity to review some edits of some of the worst flippers historically and I will be logging another notification today. Because clearly it has not all gone away. Kahastok talk 16:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I hang around some of the MOS pages and saw the astonishingly passionate unit battles fought in real time. The people involved know that the existence of this sanction means that any continuation of their life-long struggle will be quickly terminated. The lack of disruption is a feature of the sanction and removing it would help nothing. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for all the reasons previous editors have set out. Edit-warring over units has sadly not gone away, but the sanctions keep it at a lower level. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not, units on UK related articles has been some of the most ridiculous and protracted disputes on wikipedia see WP:LAME. We have a minority of users obsessed with using wikipedia as a platform to promote metrication in the UK. If you remove this, they will be back with a vengeance. WCM_email 10:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Professional wrestling

• Oppose removal of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Professional wrestling. Editing on pro wrestling often combines high emotional engagement with statistics, rankings, titles, detailed accounts of matches and kayfabe, in other words endless opportunities for exhaustive documentation and exhausting conflict. It regularly spilled into WP:ANI and WP:AN and still does (see immediately above) but not as often since sanctions were introduced. NebY (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per NebY. There have been editors who have at times not been able tell the difference between real world and kayfabe and on numerous occasions don't even add sources at all. Without seeing other areas, I suspect professional wrestling may be the worst for this. I have tried to normalise source provision and have experienced pushback (see immediately above) in that effort to improve the encyclopedia. Areas where social media play a role in the subject matter needs to be watched closely and persistent disruption requires a sanction regime. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per the two posts, above, and similar comments I made about UK units, also above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much SNCA brought to AN/ANI over wrestling; this serves as a good deterrent, be it used or not. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Bradv and KrakatoaKatie. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

• 6 September to 18 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-c@wikimedia.org.
• 19 September to 23 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 24 September to 26 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
• 27 September to 6 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
• By 17 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Katie^talk 11:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

Announcement regarding IP editing

Giving this announcement wider visibility. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Afroditeiraq moves many pages

He moved pages without discussion or whatever and creates useless redirects. Can a admin look on this? Shadow4dark (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Alerted to the WP:KURDS DS and warned: User_talk:Afroditeiraq#Discretionary_sanctions_alert_and_warning. El_C 02:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Appealing to lift my topic ban

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

---

I want to appeal to lift my topic ban as I feel that it was wrong. I don't expect you to take my word for what I write but there are at least certain things that I can prove without any issues. Around 2 years ago, I wanted to edit Falun Gong page. I wanted to add in info that Falun gong taught that aliens roamed the earth, discouraged modern medicine and was anti-science. I spent some considerable time on Talk page trying to reason with other editors on why such info should be added in. But instead I was accused of being a CCP agent by more than a few editors and also others refused to acknowledge my sources and said that they were "fringe beliefs" or it doesn't do justice in representing the religion as the creator said many things. It just seemed like excuses to not add in negative information about falun gong and I was frustrated and doubled down. Then I got blocked indefinitely after being told I wrote too much on the talk page to the point of being disruptive. I was told to wait for 6 months before appealing for an unblock so I did. Whilst waiting - approx. a few months in, one guy from brisbane based IP or a completely different Australian state, also wrote about falun gong. He also co-incidentally liked unicorns and then people accused me of being him. (I don't "like" unicorns but simply had it as my username) I honestly swear on my soul and everything about me, that people were wrong about that person being me. He and I were different and I told wiki staff to please do a proper check with their ip checkers and software. They confirmed that our ip addresses were different and that he was also in a completely different state from me - qld. Yet they chose not to believe me because they "concluded" it was likely me despite no hard evidence. That was infuriating as they were punishing me for something I didn't do, so I did certain things like going around my block to purely dispute against my wrongful punishment then got blocked without a time limit. I was told to appeal after 1 year and so I did and got unblocked. But was given new conditions to never edit china or religion related pages which basically makes it a permanent block for me.

But I feel that ban is wrong because of one key reason. A few days ago, I decided to visit the Falun gong page and to my BITTER SWEET surprise saw that it NOW mentions aliens and the discouraging of modern medicine and even its anti-science stance. I see virtually all the info I wanted to add in. ALL THAT INFO eventually been added in during the past years by other people so am pleasantly surprised by that. It is enough proof to show that at the very minimum, the edits I wanted to add in - that they are all solid real info. I was blocked precisely because I tried real hard to add those info in. If however I wanted to add in fake info and refused to quit. Then a topic ban would be fair here. But to be blocked for almost 3 years for wanting to add in fair info. That is too excessive and believe that my ban is too unfair given that context. I was told I can appeal my ban after one year and why I am here now to do just that. I have waited a long time and believe I deserve a solid second chance here. Unicornblood2018 (talk)

• Oppose Since being unblocked by the Arbitration Committee (with topic bans from China and new religious movements, broadly construed) in January 2020 they have made precisely zero edits prior to this request. They have demonstrated no ability to work productively in other areas of the encyclopedia. FDW777 (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Unicornblood2018: this was an Arbitration Committee ban and needs to be raised not here but at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment according to WP:UNBAN. It followed an unblock by the Committee - there's a slightly confusing discussion of the unblock at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 45#Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal and I am not at all convinced that this editor wasn't block evading with a dynamic mobile phone range as said at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unicornblood2018/Archive by User:Acroterion. It was supposedly logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions but I see no entry. Doug Weller talk 08:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Unblock the certain pages from this user

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

---

I have been partial blocked due to disruptive editing. I’m sincerely sorry for doing both, and would respectfully ask to be reinstated. I have a long-standing reputation prior to this issue for quality edits to Wikipedia, and I would like to resume it. I was asked to wait a long period before requesting an unblock which I have done and would love to get back to contributing positively to the community. Harimua Thailand (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Changes to functionary team

Following a request to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Callanecc are restored.

Katie^talk 13:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to functionary team

Problems at Muhammed Ali Pasha

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

---

Hello to everyone. I'm having trouble at Muhammed Ali Pasha, I don't know where to turn, I am a little agitated by the behavior of other users, and I will probably seem to lack good faith, but you should first see what has been going on at Talk:Muhammad Ali of Egypt. I mean, from the very beginning of the talk page. Basically, I want to expand the article with new information. Other users (who are Albanian, but let's move on) categorically reject this (because what I want to add is other viewpoints about the origins of the subject, who was born in Greece and whose ethnic origins are utterly unknown, but they are apparently convinced was Albanian. Sometimes they say that the sources I provided are unreliable, self-published or "misinterpreted", which is not true, but see for yourself. Other times they say that it is because, according to them, the "very majority of sources in GB report Albanian origin for the subject.

Now that the "very majority of sources" claim the subject was Albanian is also false, but still: the other viewpoints about the subject's origins (Kurdish and Turkish) do exist, and are held by a considerable number of scholars, possibly greater than those copy-pasting the Albanian claim largely spread by Wikipedia. Before I started this discussion, I didn't even notice that there is a series of editors who complained at the talk page. However, the other viewpoints are still hidden from the article, which also contains sheer lies and misuse of sources aimed at support the Albanian claim. In fact, I (actually, another user, who like me tried to fix the article) even provided one source (Oxford University Press) explaining how the erroneous claim about his Albanian origin originated. Another user pointed out that these users argued differently in other instances, maybe in articles like Hayreddin Barbarossa, where an ethnic Albanian claim for the subject cited only by two Italian authors in world history is being allowed to be reported.

There might be abuse by a group of users, and I don't know where to turn. I tried to ask for a third opinion, but my request was rejected. After all, it is more than one user disagreeing with me. But please, look closely into the matter. The three Albanian users say I should discuss with them whether to preserve the fake claims about Muhammad Ali or not, and whether to hide anything that goes against their very own viewpoint. I provided a large number of sources for the material I want to add to the article, all reliable. I believe that here (as any other place, but especially here, where the subject was born in a third place and his origin are utterly unknown, where Britannica itself says his origins are unknown) there is no need to discuss about whether to include the other viewpoints, because another viewpoint, if existent and proved to be such (which, again, I did multiple times and by providing multiple sources) must be included per WP:NPOV. The three users reject any addition undermining the present message the article conveys: that the subject, about whose origin nothing is established (in fact, there is some evidence about Kurdish origin (family tradition) and Anatolian Turk origins (documents located in Turkey according to the Turkish Encyclopedia), but no evidence for the Albanian origin, the only possibility they want the include in the article). Even if was to discuss the matter with them (whether to include other viewpoints that objectively exist), there is an even more fundamental concept which is Nemo iudex in causa sua. How am I supposed to seek consensus about this with three Albanians who might be tag-teaming? Thanks in advance for Your help.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Haldir Marchwarden, I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish with this lengthy who are Albanian, but let's move on -request (I confess to have skimmed it), but it doesn't look likely to be actionable at this time. Noting that on Sept 3, Ymblanter fully-protected for 3 days, a protection which expired a couple of hours ago. BTW, SilentResident, Albanian-related disputes are covered by the WP:BALKANS AE regime. @Ktrimi991, Ahmet Q., and Maleschreiber: courtesy pings. El_C 01:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C:, yes I am fully aware of WP:BALKANS, and not just that, but also of the recent discussions at the AE regarding the curbing of the nationalist editing in the Balkan topic area (such as the March 2021 Sadko and Mikola22 case at: [19])... --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 07:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Sometimes I am direct and impolite, but I mean well. Nothing El C, it's just the way it is and I said it. You can make whatever you want with it. There are other points which you didn't address. Should the inclusion of another viewpoint that objectively exists be discusses at all? I do not want to remove material from this (or any other) article, but expand it, and I am willing to discuss and compromise on the phrasing etc., but again, do you think the inclusion of the other viewpoints should be even discussed? If so, what to do if a group of users, of whatever nationality, deny the existence of this pov or say that because, according to them, another is by far more prominent (which is not true btw) we should include only the most prominent? And what to do with users who want to keep/put false claims in the article, misuse sources, and who falsely claim that the sources you (I) provided are "misinterpreted" and "unreliable", when both things are not true? Could we possibly take votes among outsiders (people not from the Balkans) to reach a decision in this particular case? I point out that the problem at Muhammad Ali is nothing new, it's a very long debate, and the text in the present article disagrees not only with many scholars, but with what reported in the world's major encyclopedias. If the other users are convinced, like me, that they are right, they will welcome such a voting, because after all they are right, and the truth always comes out sooner or later, so it would be fine for them to have the truth fully established once and for all. I shall point out that I am not from the Balkans/Egypt etc., yet I am willing to refrain from voting if all users from the Balkans do the same.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: This is a content dispute. Haldir tried to add content which was reverted by multiple editors. I was not involved in the editing dispute itself but I asked him to file a new WP:RFC as is expected in content disputes. Haldir has been involved in other content disputes about the ethnicity of prominent figures and Ottoman history. He received a warning [20] after an edit-warring report[21] and he has been notified about AE sanctions [22] Haldir tries to frame the fact that other editors are disputing his edits as something which derives from their ethnicity and "ethnic politics", but that is not the case. Many editors have disputed his edits in a wide range of articles because there are problems in the manner he uses sources.[23][24][25]. I have opposed his edits at Muhammad Ali of Egypt (Haldir proposes that he was a Turk/Anatolian/Kurd and not Albanian), Gedik Ahmed Pasha (Haldir proposes that a Serb general was an Albanian)[26], Battle of Kosovo (Haldir proposes that it was the basis for the collapse of Serbia instead of an inconclusive event) for the same reasons: improper use of bibliography. It can't be that when someone opposes the labelling of a person of Serb origin as an Albanian, he's defending the "Serbian POV" but when he opposes calling an Albanian something else against all that historically known, he's defending the "Albanian POV". In every one of these discussions, I've tried to be as open-minded as possible towards Haldir even when they used a novel as a historiographical source [27] and a source which proposed the opposite of what Haldir claimed [28]. But they must understand that wikipedia functions via consensus and whenever edits are contested, involved editors have to address the issues without personalizing the discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

SilentResident, ah, I see. Looks like I misread your I strongly believe that closer admin/AE moderation may be required on the Albania topic area, just like in the Serbia and other Balkan topic areas (bold is my emphasis), though a comparative shortage of Albanian-related BALKANS enforcement isn't something I myself have picked up on.

Haldir Marchwarden, at some point, being overly-lengthy again and again sort of comes across as filibustering (WP:BLUDGEON). Anyway, I'm getting the sense that you misunderstand very basic things about Wikipedia, such as WP:NOTAVOTE, or how to resolve content disputes (WP:DR), how to evaluate the reliability of sources (WP:RSN) and so on. We don't resolve content disputes on this board. And (this is key), assuming that your content opponents are of a particular ethnicity or nationality and excusing that misconduct as Sometimes I am direct and impolite, but I mean well isn't actually a mitigating factor. So please take note.

Maleschreiber, indeed, it looks like a WP:BALKANS WP:TBAN in the making, though maybe this exchange can serve as a final wake up call...? Hopefully. El_C 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

A bot just removed my comment. Anyway, Maleschreiber, false , false, and false. I do not think the subject was Turk or Kurd and not Albanian. I oppose your attempt to force the viewpoint that he was Albanian for sure, when we have no clue whether this is the case and it is not what believed by scholars. What I did on other places doesn't matter: here I provided multiple sources supporting my addition, and you simply reject the argument. On other articles, where it suits you, you act differently. All I ask is to include other viewpoints. I'm not asking to remove anything like you do. Why you want to force your viewpoint?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: Malschreiber, why you make personal attacks, citing past mistakes of mine on other articles? You never made a mistake? The source I used at Muhammad does not state "the opposite", it precisely confirms what I wrote, that there was a family tradition whereby they were Kurds. That is one of many reliable sources citing Kurdish origin. But you are an Albanian who refuses the existence of other viewpoints. You want to force your views. The other user is right: I do not have basics of Wikipedia. I just know that we must include the other viewpoints and not let this group exercise dictatorship on this article nor any other. Three Albanian users, Cheguevara and Ahmed are telling me that I must listen to them and accept to leave Albanian lies and dictatorship on the article, and of course I'll have to accept this. What else can I do?--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And EDIT 3: That's right Che, maybe it can be a final wake-up call for the admins and Wikipedia as a whole to set things right at that article. I tried to do my best to stop what Malschreiber and the others are doing there, now it's their responsibility. Who reads and moves on: it's their responsibility.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Haldir Marchwarden: I do not have basics of Wikipedia [and] What else can I do? Familiarizing yourself with the basics outside of contentious topic areas such as WP:BALKANS and WP:KURDS would be the way to go, I think. Because it isn't easy needing to go over the basics with someone in the midst of disputes concerning such heated topic areas. Another Wikipedia axiom, btw.

Finally, Three Albanian users, Cheguevara and Ahmed [that's two, not three!] are telling me [etc.] — for the last time, please stop with the ethno-national designations of your fellow editors. If you do it again, I will sanction you. [Added after edit conflict:] I don't think you've understood my points, please have a closer look again at what I've said here thus far. El_C 12:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• @El C: thank you for the ping, the filer of this complaint did not notify me. I said on the article's tp that I will post a long list of sources, so the issue can be better evaluated. In this regard, it is a pity that the filer makes here and on the article's tp tag-teaming aspersions without any evidence. The filer should also learn that edit warring is just another form of battleground mentality. They made 5 reverts in 24 hours, reverting 4 editors who disagree with him, [29][30][31][32][33], although they got a warning after the 3rd revert [34]. They were warned for edit warring 10 days or so ago by an admin [35]. I am still on a "wikibreak", so I do not think I can keep an eye on this discussion. Hopefully the filer will reflect and choose to solve disputes with calm and patience rather than edit warring and personal attacks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, I actually always try to notify everybody, differently from you and Melschreiber, which caused troubles in the past, and is not very nice either. Without any evidence? You removed the warning from Ahmed's page, and you all either state you are Albanians or largely edit Albanian articles. Btw, while Ahmed was publishing warning at my talk page, I was trying to discuss with him at the talk page. Unfortunately, you left the conversation, and you all simply reject the argument instead of try and discuss. I said several times that I am willing to discuss the phrasing of the new content. Yes, I reverted, but you all did the same, and for me, in this specific case, you count as one, because you all share origins and viewpoint. My additions seek to expand the article, your reverts seek to remove content. Che: Allright, I don't have basics and all the axioms and I am not able to study them now and in the future. So what we are going to do about this matter meanwhile? It's not all bureaucracy, here and in real life, when you see something wrong you go and fix it without mincing words. We could go on all night with mincing words. You ask me to stop with ethno-national designations but say nothing on personal attacks I received. What I said is true, that is the nationality and presumably political view/idol of you guys. But I would never dare go looking for other users' mistakes to try and criticize them. You will sanction me if I do what? You want me to say that I am not arguing with Albanian users and I am not moderated by Che and Ahmed? Yes, I understood your point, and also that of all admins and watchers who think "what's the point of stopping them, they will have it their own way anyway; even if it takes creating fake profiles to force their viewpoint, like they did at List of Ottoman Grand Viziers. But I believe that things can be fixed, and this is a good chance to give the good example.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I do not want to be harsh, but frankly I do not know how this editor can edit Balkan stuff neutrally without making nationality-based personal attacks. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(there was an edit conflict, i started writing this answer before the discussion was closed) Thanks for finally starting to ping me Maleschreiber. Differently from you (as it appears), I don't have my own belief about the subject's origin, but I do strive to report all viewpoints and curtail authoritative practices. I already stated that I made a show at Gedik Ahed Pasha (I also say it was a mistake and I shouldn't have done it, but when I saw some Albanians polluting that page too I got angry). I wanted to make sure that Gedik's page-watcher (Demetrios) was a good one and unbiased one, and that no other Albanian nationalists disrupted that page as well (and again). How could someone earnestly argue against material evidence, such as that mentioned by Lowry for Gedik Ahmed Pasha? Did you believe that? The battle of Kosovo is another matter: I simply argue that a deeper review is needed there, and that rather that "inconclusive" the outcome is "unknown" (not necessarily an Ottoman victory though, as reported by Britannica) because of the lack of reliable contemporary sources. But if the battle of Kosovo's "indecisive" outcome is acceptable to allow, the suppression of other viewpoints taking place at Muhammed Ali is not. The fake claims made in that article and the suppression of information are simply too much.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Haldir Marchwarden: All editors who have reverted you at Muhammad Ali, Gedik Ahmed Pasha and Battle of Kosovo have respected your right to have your own beliefs and they've asked you to familiarize yourself with some basic policies. But you still repeat a narrative about ethnicity and "moderation": What I said is true, that is the nationality and presumably political view/idol of you guys. (..) You will sanction me if I do what? You want me to say that I am not arguing with Albanian users and I am not moderated by Che and Ahmed? Side comment: who is Che? .--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Met Bozi - an attack page?

An article accuses a (presumably) living person in a criminal act, which is basically its only content. The person used to be a parliament member. As far as I understand, the case has never been brought to the court (at least not in relation to the subject of the article). The article was created in 2011, the creator last edited Wikipedia six years ago. There are five references to confirm this; four are dead and unrecoverable; one has been arxived, but only one part out of three. It is in Albanian and contains indeed the statement about the criminal act, but the status is unclear, it might be someone's private opinion. What do we do? Delete it as an attack page? AfD? --Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I will always advocate for removing such content if given the opportunity. AFAIK, we do not cover accusations unless there is a "due weight" impact verifiable, ie- lost job because of an accusation, a major policy change made in real life due to the accusation, etc. AFAIK, the rule of thumb is to await a conviction to present such in Wikipedia's name. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove the negative bits until we have better sourcing. Though this at least seems to confirm he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment: "Ra në rrjetën e OFL/ Kush është 'i tmerrshmi' Met Bozi, që dha urdhër të digjeshin 6 gardistë" [Fell into the net of OFL / Who is the 'terrible' Met Bozi, who gave the order to burn 6 guards]. Shqip (in Albanian). 18 August 2020. Retrieved 7 September 2021. But it does not give a detailed description of his life. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

And this: (translation) "... Met Bozi is known as one of the persons involved in the Cërrik massacre where 6 guards were killed and 16 others were injured. The gruesome event took place in May 1997 while according to witnesses who survived the massacre, Bozi had ordered the guards to be burned alive. Bozi was sentenced to life in prison in 2011."[36]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Deepfriedokra and Malcolmxl5. I will look at this source and see whether anything can be reliably confirmed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• I've deleted the article per G10. Of the five sources that "sourced" the allegations against him, four are no longer available online, and the fifth simply describes his defence to the accusations. The article may well be completely correct, but this isn't good enough for a BLP, sorry. Black Kite (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, this solves the problem (and saves some of my time) in the short run.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Cold Season - topic ban proposal

Moved to ANI, unarchived to wrong place. SpinningSpark 07:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

doctor yaser alsaidi

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

---

I try to write article about doctor yaser alsaidi when i start to writing i choose thiese name " yaser j. K. Alsaidi and i found that name is on the black list !!! Can i know why and i ask for remove this name from the black list please Thank you for you listen Yellowjoe (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me just ping a relevant operative: @Billinghurst: -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Would that be the crosswiki abuse articles, or the sockpuppet? ([37], User:Dr - YASER J. K. ALSAIDI, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dr - YASER J. K. ALSAIDI, special:Centralauth/User:Dr - YASER J. K. ALSAIDI ) I will note that the search doesn't show all the deleted attempts. Tell us about yourself Yellowjoe and your relationship to this person or the sock accounts? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

This is cross-wiki spam, I was struggling with it on one of the smaller Wikipedia (I guess Crimean Tatar) reverting a sock for several days every half an hour until stewards finally did the job. I strongly suspect that OP is from the same sockfarm.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I apologize for my behavior, but I assure you that I have no intention of publishing subversive content or harming the encyclopedia. All I tried to do was to find out what was the cause of the problem because of my little experience in Wikipedia. As for the person, he is a surgeon and I have a relationship with him. I wanted to present an article to him here as a kind of gift to him, but I found that the name was prohibited and I wanted to know the reason— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowjoe (talk • contribs)

Given they have made changes to Rasha Kelej that appear to include promo/puffery and a possible copyright infringement on a picture uploaded to commons, I think the community is right to be concerned about motivation. Slywriter (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Yellowjoe: We are an encyclopaedia, not a gift repository. Your attempt at naivety has to be challenged. You have avoided blocks and flouted rules for a personal feel-good. Then you have the temerity to ask the question when you will know the answer after you have again tried to create the article. Zero for which you are to be proud, and if it is truly a friend then puffery helps nobody. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dr - YASER J. K. ALSAIDI/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you, sir, that I have no intention of sabotaging the content of this encyclopedia....and I apologize for my actions because of my lack of experience. ... and my real goal is to contribute here correctly in order to become an active member in order to spread the information correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowjoe (talk • contribs) 08:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yellowjoe and to the person and/or persons attempting to create the bio for this 27-year-old Palestinian doctor (admins only): this individual fails to meet notability criteria at this time. Please stop. El_C 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Expression error unexpected < operator

Greetings. There is an error message in several pages (it could be in many or all of them) in the bio infobox, regarding the divorce date. Instead of the date, the message appears. Checked Gary Collins, Leonard Nimoy, David Carradine, Elizabeth Taylor. The only place I found mentions of this error are Fandom forums; one says the administrators must be notified: <https://community.fandom.com/f/p/1951276959006722176>
The other presents a solution: <https://community.fandom.com/f/p/2627649423802370196>
Which I don't know whether it works; that's for the ones who really understand coding. Good luck. Maykiwi (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It is possible that the problem is that the template {{Wdib|P570|fwd=ALL|maxvals=1|noicon=true|pd=yes}} is returning dates like 23' 'March' '2011. That is being fed into the #time parserfunction to extract the year, which is throwing "error: invalid time" (inside some HTML markup), and that in turn is being fed to #ifexpr. I don't know why {{Wdib}} is doing this, or if that is even unusual. I don't see any change to the template or the module backing it recently. ST47 (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what caused the issue, but this fixed it. ST47 (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank goodness, I wasn't the only editor coming across this problem, now fixed. GoodDay (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@ST47: Greetings. Thanks for your efforts. Regarding the cause of the error message, it might be interesting to take a look at this video from the YouTube science divulgation channel Veritasium, about ionized particles that by changing single bits in the memory of a computer or server can cause strange behaviors in them.<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaZ_RSt0KP8> It could be a thing to consider regarding the physical integrity of Wikipedia. Maykiwi (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maykiwi: You may rest assured that the issue here wasn't a rogue cosmic ray, but rather a rogue Template Editor on Commons, who made a change to some data file on which we rely, failed to test it, and restored a broken version even after being notified that it had caused issues on multiple wikis. Their privileges have been revoked, though I still question the wisdom of such a reliance on a Commons to store a data file that really should never need to be changed. ST47 (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Also discussed at Template_talk:Marriage#Malfunction_inside_of_infobox? and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Date_formatting_and_WikidataIB. ST47 (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Cambial Yellowing

Struck comments from blocked editor

I previously raised a concern about User Cambial_Yellowing. They have taken an extremely possessive approach regarding the article United_Kingdom_Internal_Market_Act_2020. They appear to auto revert any edits but there own. They also delete tags warning of bias etc and delete comments from the talk page. I was concerned about the nationalist bias the article was presenting as such I reported his action here, and flagged on their talkpage. However it appears after alerting them he instantly came here and deleted the incident before anyone could see it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=1031437569 Due to this behaviour I haven't alerted them this time, in order to allow admins time to consider and prevent the report being deleted again. I have also noticed that they appeared to have stalked me to other articles and blanket reverted edits and tags there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UK_deaths_in_custody&action=history and on the talk pages https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUK_deaths_in_custody&type=revision&diff=1040946408&oldid=1034587305 I think this may be an example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:You_don%27t_own_Wikipedia#How_egotistical_power_users_react — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.24.203 (talk • contribs)

I have notified CY of this thread. Looking into this a bit, I see CY's revert of a talk page post at Special:Diff/1040946408 mentioned WP:BE in the edit summary. If this is BE, the IP should be blocked. If it's not BE, then the IP's talk page posts shouldn't be reverted. We probably need some admin and maybe CU attention here. Levivich 17:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I will appreciate if an admin can block this IP. The earlier investigation identified the IP as a blocked user but as their edits were concentrated on a single article (and the user's history of IP-hopping on mobile to evade), that article was page protected rather than play whack-a-mole. Cambial foliage❧ 18:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Legal threat

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

---

Please see this edit. Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Motion to standardize Extended Confirmed restrictions

A motion has been made to amend the Arbitration Committee's procedures to standardize the extended confirmed restriction. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion for more information or if you wish to comment. For the Arbitration Committee, Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 03:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motion to standardize Extended Confirmed restrictions

Automatically applying ECP to high-risk templates

Following the successful closure of the recent RfC to permit preemptive use of ECP on templates, I'm here as promised to discuss how we want to change the thresholds for User:MusikBot II/TemplateProtector, which automatically protects highly transcluded templates based on the configuration.

Skimming over the RfC, it seems most people are content with leaving the template protection threshold at 5,000 transclusions. Meanwhile a 2018 RfC showed consensus to permanently semi-protect templates with 200-250 transclusions. With that in mind, I propose this configuration:

• autoconfirmed – 250 transclusions
• extendedconfirmed – 2,500 transclusions
• templateeditor – 5,000 transclusions

So the only changes are to lower autoconfirmed to 250 from 500, and add in ECP at 2,500. I'm happy to keep at autoconfirmed at 500 if we want, but I do think we should take advantage of ECP now that policy allows it. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• The most important aspects from my point of view: Not increasing any existing limit, adding ECP somewhere between the existing limits, and happily lowering any limit. The proposal meets my criteria. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• I am fine with these numbers--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• What my learned colleagues said. El_C 21:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Looks good. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• +1 - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) As a non-admin, I feel this proposed change will be beneficial to the wiki. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 14:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Sanity check on some revdels

Hi y'all - per this comment, I have replaced Ultima the Hedgehog and Chiphilla's user pages with {{compromised account}} and revision deleted the page history. I have also blanked and revision deleted the history of Ultima the Hedgehog's user talk page. Given this is another WP:IAR thing, I thought I better drop a note here for review. Many thanks ~TNT (she/they • talk) 23:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Good call. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally reasonable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Since you asked for review, I think you deleted too many revisions at User_talk:Ultima the Hedgehog, including your edit summary, the message from MediaWiki message delivery, and the early edits. I appreciate there is one revision, possibly several with IAR, which should be deleted. Other than that, looks good and seems sensible. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Shift-clicking the lot was a little gratuitous, you're right.. I've refined it a little ~TNT (she/they • talk) 00:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

And I misread the diffs a little. Thanks for the adjustment, and the deletions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect proxy IP blocking of part of the UN, how do I request this is changed?

Hi all

Recently I've been doing some work with a part of the UN and it appears that they are blocked from Wikipedia because their IP 165.225.95.30 is part of blocked range 165.225.0.0/17. Can someone tell me how to correct this?

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ping AmandaNP who placed the block. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I should probably link to my response at the help desk, as well as the previous discussion of Zscaler. As a general comment for admins doing range blocks, imagine you are sat in your office in the UN doing UN stuff on their network, you notice an error in a wiki page and try to update it, and then you're presented with this message. You can see just from the range contribs just how confusing it can all be. Sometimes the real reason something is blocked is far less important than the message you are sending to innocent users. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

The range is also globally blocked for the next three years. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. This is an issue that needs sorting out, especially given the global block. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As a counter to user:zzuuzz - imagine you are sat at your office in the UN doing UN stuff on their network when you want to vandalise an article. These ranges are blocked for a reason - we shouldn't give vandals who edit from UN computers any freer hand than those who vandalise from their homes.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you're not describing UN employees as vandals. In reality I regard the average Zscaler users as highly educated, highly knowledgeable experts in their respective fields, on a high wage and accountable to several people including their employee's network manager, however, I have never suggested that they don't get blocked if they're causing disruption. I have argued against two things in particular: soft blocking them just because of their technical setup, and hard blocking them just because of their technical setup. But here I'm not even discussing the merits of the block but arguing another of my pet peeves. I'm discussing the message we're sending through the block message to the users of this network, which frankly has no reason to make any sense to any of them. Now picture yourself at that desk in that office again and reading that message. What does it tell you? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Some people who edit Wikipedia via UN computers are undoubtably vandals or disruptive, just like people at the Houses of Parliament and Congress. There should be absolutely no reason why we treat them as superior than anyone else, which is what you are proposing doing. If I access Wikipedia using a VPN I cannot edit - this is no different.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself, I am not discussing the merits of the block. It may be justified due to disruption, it may not. I haven't looked into it because it's really irrelevant to what I'm saying, to what this thread is about, and to many of the complaints we regularly get from these types of users. The block reason - the one they're reading - doesn't make sense. It doesn't tell them what the problem is, and it doesn't give any relevant solutions. That template does have its uses, but in this case it provides something worse than nonsense. In case you don't realise, these are not normal VPNs, sometimes not VPNs at all. If you're at work, you can't just turn it off. These networks are generally used as part of highly sophisticated security environments. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nigel Ish do you have any evidence for 'Some people who edit Wikipedia via UN computers are undoubtably vandals or disruptive'? Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The vandalism is why it was blocked in the first place. Again - why should people who are editing through UN networks and computers be allowed to edit from behind proxies when normal common people are not. Why must they be treated as superior beings?Nigel Ish (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The last consensus as pointed out by Zzuuzz was that zscaler should be at least anon only blocked. If someone wants to change the message and maybe make a {{zscalerblock}} template pointing to ACC or something, I wouldn't be opposed - in fact feel free to. But the general thing is this is an anonymizing source where people anywhere in the world are able to login and use this network (not specifically the UNs). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I've converted the template to something more meaningful, though as I mentioned before only a steward can change the message for the global block. I think the local template should help anyway. These people are going to need accounts, which they'll need to create away from this network - either on their phones, or at home, their local wifi hotspot, or by someone creating their account for them at Special:CreateAccount. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi zzuuzz thanks very much, could you link to the template? I don't understand how to find it. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

They should see Template:Anonblock feature quite prominently when they try to edit without an account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is all very well, but there needs to be a bigger discussion about the default position of blocking companies that provide security services like these. See for example this block by ST47. Forcepoint provide services for a wide array of customers. From huge to small (including my employer, a national charity). There is a COVID related issue here (UK) in that my employer just to survive had to transition to an almost entirely remote-working arrangement, which meant for many employees their work-provided laptop was now the primary internet machine in their homes (excluding mobile phones, but no one is going to seriously suggest editing from/through mobiles beyond spell corrections) and being used outside of their work. Likewise many other orgs, educational or otherwise have provided employees and students with hardware, which is all hardblocked from editing. I am lucky in that I can just switch to my home PC, but for many of my colleagues that isnt an option. There needs to be a serious discussion about the use of indiscriminate hardblocks for companies like Zscaler and Forcepoint being the default position, rather than anon-only. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Although for context, see here for the contributions for the above IP. Not exactly a hotbed of anonymous vandalism is it? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes it's a reasonable discussion to continue having. The previous Zscaler discussion I linked to above has a consensus that they be at most soft blocked (in the absence of other abuse). The concepts of data centres, colo, and cloud have shifted markedly since I became an admin, even in the past few years. And as you describe there are now even broader changes to face up to. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  People probably shouldn't be using their work provided secure IT equipment for any more than incidental personal use anyway. Certainly if I was using my company supplied IT equipment for personal use then I would risk breaching my employer's IT acceptable use policy and risk getting sacked, and I suspect the same applies for the vast majority of users in the corporate environment.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Most employers dont restrict wikipedia for obvious reasons. Most employers are fine with reasonable personal use which is why acceptable use policies exist - to make clear the standards required. Your argument is basically 'editing wikipedia is risking breaching my employer's acceptable use policy' which says more about your employer and your editing habits than being any real measurable standard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Passing note: {{colocationwebhost-soft}} may come in handy for future blocks like this. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Ban appeal by User:Bus stop

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

---

Note: this request is copied from User talk:Bus stop. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Unblock request: From a sourcing point of view there can be no doubt that Einstein was Jewish. But it was determined, based on such policies as WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS, that the Albert Einstein article should not pointedly state "Einstein was Jewish". The other editors preferred the language "was born into a Jewish family". WP:ONUS tells us: "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included in an article...consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted". This information was clearly verifiable but consensus determined that its inclusion would not improve the article. I WP:BLUDGEONED at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_19#Einstein_and_Jewishness. I should not have argued against a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS which did not want to pointedly state that Einstein was Jewish. The other editors weighing in to that discussion disagreed with the edit I was suggesting and I should have respected their opinion when it became obvious that consensus was against me. While I cannot undo the past I can vow never to do that again. I bludgeoned (WP:BLUDGEONED) the article Talk page and I offer this sincere commitment to not be overly argumentative at article Talk pages again. I am asking that my account be un-blocked so that I may continue to constructively edit Wikipedia. This was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive330#Ban_removal_request_of_Bus_stop but my request was denied with the expectation that I wait 6 months before requesting again. Hence this appeal now. Thank you.

Original ban discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1059#Bludgeoning_(Bus_stop). Previous appeal is linked above.

• Oppose "From a sourcing point of view there can be no doubt that Einstein was Jewish." First statement of the unblock is to continue the bludgeoning that lead to the ban. Nope. Not comfortable with lifting the ban at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Is this a joke? They basically underline why they were banned in the first sentence.--Jorm (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not sure if it's worse if they are trolling or if this is genuine, but either is a good reason not to lift the ban. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - and I offer this sincere commitment to not be overly argumentative at article Talk pages again, yet the very first sentence of this unblock is them resuming the argument. I think that says it all. Hog Farm _Talk 20:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• The only difference between this and the declined March ban appeal is the sentence "This was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive330#Ban_removal_request_of_Bus_stop but my request was denied with the expectation that I wait 6 months before requesting again. Hence this appeal now". There were several there who opposed the request with reasons other than that it hadn't been the six months. This demonstrates a lack of understanding to me, and leads me to believe Bus stop should not be unbanned at this time. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as this statement is still bludgeoning, and suggest that any future unblock be conditional on a topic ban from Judaism, broadly construed.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as abuse of WP:SO as a simple time-out without any indication of constructive editing elsewhere (the sum total of their edits on other projects since then was an edit war and ensuing walls of text on wiktionary because they were, surprise, blocked there too [for a 1-month period] [38] [39] [40]). A second choice per WP:ROPE could be support with restrictions - either "indefinite topic ban from anything related to Judaism, broadly construed", as per the comments on their talk page by others; or "indefinite 1RR restriction" (due to the edit warring as demonstrated cross-wiki); or both; but given they seem able to disrupt even unrelated topics on other projects, it's at best optimistic, at worst entirely unrealistic to expect that this user will change their behaviour. Courtesy pings for cross-wiki opinions: @Equinox and Chuck Entz: RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• For context, the dispute at Wiktionary was on a completely different topic: the definition of "found art". Bus stop contended that it really was a misnomer, since the technical term used by artists is "found objects". While this would be correct by Wikipedia standards, Wiktionary is based on usage rather than authoritative sources- and most people who use the term mean the art of found objects. After extended talk-page verbiage and removal of at least one quote illustrating usage, Equinox lost patience and imposed a 1-month block.

My impression is that this is someone who has trouble letting go and looking at the larger context when they feel they are correct regarding a simple point of fact. You may be able to get them to leave this dead horse alone, but one has to wonder how long it's going to be before they find another. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as a textbook example of how not to appeal a ban. Grandpallama (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This appeal is indistinguishable from trolling. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Unbelievable, how could anyone think an appeal like this would be granted. The Wikitionary dispute is another example of their inability not to be disruptive. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and it looks like this discussion can be closed. The unblock request is further evidence that Bus stop doesn't understand their conduct issues and has not worked on improving themselves in the intervening time since their last unblock request. — Bilorv (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This is not a ban appeal, this is a continuation of the behavior that resulted in the ban. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Call be soft-hearted or naive. But, I think we should give'em a 1-month try out, so as to prove himself. GoodDay (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• I choose soft-hearted. You are soft-hearted. :) HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Continued failure to drop the stick. Same as it ever was... GAB^gab 18:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pawnkingthree. --JBL (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: Per the editor's post, they seem to be fairly directly saying that they apologize for engaging in the argument and don't wish to do it further ("consensus determined that its inclusion would not improve the article. I WP:BLUDGEONED. I should not have argued against a longstanding WP:CONSENSUS"). It's not clear to me that this is a "continuation of the behavior that resulted in the ban", so much as it's a description of that behavior and the editor saying they won't do it again. This is not to say that they would or wouldn't get into more arguments, but it seems strange to say that their post above is an attempt to relitigate the previous one. jp×g 21:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

An additional note — not sure whether it's a point in favor of unblock or a point against it, but I noticed this recently, and it's relevant, so I will mention it even if doing so makes me look like a dumbass. This is kind of a long and boring story, so go ahead and skip to the end if you want. Anyway, I trust we all remember that when this editor was banned a few months ago, it was in the midst of a series of highly political arguments during which they took the approximately righty tack, and their interlocutors took the approximately lefty tack. A few insinuations were made, at this point, that their edits were anti-Semitic in nature. I don't know if it was said explicitly, but the issue was brought up, and it definitely seemed to play a part in people's judgments of the whole affair. I didn't pay much attention, because the issue didn't really concern me (and still doesn't). However, a few weeks ago, I saw this editor's name again. I was working on an unrelated project (the Oracle for Deletion, which parses deletion pages to provide sortable tables of discussions and statistics by day, month, and year back to 2005). I decided to go on Quarry to find the 1,000 longest deletion discussions of all time, which I parsed out here. Looking at a couple of the longest, I was surprised to find a name I recognized: in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable converts to Christianity (3rd nomination), a nomination made by our very own "Bus stop" in 2007, similarly oriented around the same issue. Here, however, it seems obvious to me that they are not coming at the issue from an anti-Semitic agenda (for example, they describe Bob Dylan's inclusion in the list as an "offense to Judaism" and "a form of Christian imperialism"). Now, this is kind of a double-edged sword: on one hand, I really don't think they are doing this out of antipathy for Jewish people (indeed, the way they write makes it sound like they are in all likelihood Jewish themselves), but on the other hand, it does seem like this is an issue they've been fixated on for quite some time, and are inclined to start lots of unproductive arguments about. Perhaps a topic ban is in order, if they are unblocked. Perhaps they ought not to be unblocked at all. However, I think this warrants mentioning. Make of it what you will. jp×g 01:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Huh -- I typed this up about an hour ago, went afk, and I guess the section had been closed by the time I saved it. Not sure how I didn't get an edit conflict. Oh, well. jp×g 01:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment What a very strange way to open an unblock request. Without that first sentence I might even have been swayed. Perhaps a topic ban is still possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, but for different reasons than many people above. I could stretch my AGF enough to accept JPxG's interpretation of the unblock request. But my bigger concern is RandomCanadian's note above that, while blocked here for relentlessly bludgeoning discussions - and after explicitly promising a few months ago that they had learned their lesson and wouldn't bludgeon discussions again - in late June they went to Wiktionary and got blocked for ... bludgeoning a discussion, one that they had already apparently had issues with in February 2020. They returned to an argument from 1.5 years ago, and got blocked for bludgeoning a discussion. Come on. This is strong evidence to me that Bus Stop really does not understand why they are blocked, is just saying what they think we want to hear, will resume such behavior if unblocked here, and is simply incapable of dropping the stick. No thanks. I suppose the way things work here, we're guaranteed an unblock request every six months, but I've seen enough, and can't imagine what they could possibly say in a future unblock request that I would believe. Too many false promises too many times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Good grief. Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per everyone. Geez... - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

New tool to identify sockpuppets based on writing style

Checkusers on the English Wikipedia will soon have access to a new tool aimed at identifying misuse of multiple accounts based on a person's writing style. masz, developed by Ladsgroup, uses natural language processing to create an individual 'fingerprint' of a user based on the way they use language on talk pages. Checkusers can log into a web interface to compare the fingerprints of two accounts or list accounts with similar fingerprints. The tool is already live on several projects and is expected to start running on enwiki after phab:T290793 is resolved. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss this at: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § New tool to identify sockpuppets based on writing style.

WP:COMMONNAME and airports

User:Anthony Appleyard has moved Hamid Karzai International Airport to Kabul Airport. However I have always seen airport articles use the official name instead of names like say "New Delhi Aiport" or "New York City Aiport". The COMMONNAME policy allows use of official names, but what is the standard practice that should be used in regarding to making airports. If it's using official names then I request an admin to please move back Kabul Airport to its original name. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Correction: The name of the airport has been changed to simply Kabul International Airport by the Taliban, who have removed Hamid Karzai's name [41]. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

AA only moved it because it was listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. If you dispute it, ask to have the move reversed on their talk page; they are an extremely cordial person. The original requester (User:Hindu108) can then start a move discussion on the article's talk page, if they are so inclined. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I will but I'd still like a clarification. Just so I don't end up trying to have it moved to another name in vain. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You might have more luck at Wikipedia talk:Article titles. I'm not aware of any topic-specific naming conventions for airports, and I didn't see anything in Category:Wikipedia naming conventions except for this long-dormant draft proposal. Even though it doesn't have consensus, that draft still seems pretty sensible, and seems to reflect common practice today. The examples it gives of Munich Airport and Sydney Airport (officially Franz Josef Strauss Airport and Kingsford Smith Airport, respectively) seem to align with the choice of Kabul Airport (and, ultimately, WP:CRITERIA). Colin M (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any wide consensus around the names of airports. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

CBAN appeal from Gleeanon409

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

---

Good morning all,

Gleeanon409, previously Benjiboi, is requesting unblock; I have copied their appeal below. They are currently subject to a community ban imposed here in 2010. Yamla commented at their talk page that CU data does not indicate any recent attempts at sockpupetry. No comment on the merits of the appeal, but I recommend that we consider the appeal from Gleeanon rather than requiring that they make it as Benjiboi, given that it has been over a decade since the latter account was last active.

As is seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi/Archive I have had a checkered history. How people conduct themselves with other editors has improved over the years but back then (2006) I was out and gay and had more than my share of negative attention both on and off wiki from other editors. I was also active with the Rescue Squad which put me squarely in the crosshairs of the perennial deletionist/inclusionist issues. I was new to social media so didn’t handle the constant abuse well, I felt I was targeted and attacked, on and off wiki. Suffice it to say I eventually reacted very poorly and by late 2010 made up a ton of socks which ended up causing headaches to others, it was obvious the attacks would continue and there was an organized offsite effort. I certainly shouldn’t have, and I wish I would have known or considered any better options. I saw zero future for me with a project I loved, and saw zero options but the poor ones I chose. Until 2021 I either didn’t know or realize a standard offer existed. In 2019 I tried to make what I thought was a clean start but was sleuthed out by editors who are into such things. I regret that they also made bad faith accusations as a pillar of the report alleging that I have any support for child rape, I certainly do not, but I’ve learned anyone canu say anything on the internet without consequences. Generally I think my Gleeanon409 account shows that I support insisting on reliable sources and building consensus when disagreements arise. It can take longer but the results last longer as well. I’d like to resume with the Gleeanon409 account with the community’s permission. I’d appreciate if you could take this request to whatever board is appropriate for consideration. p.s. I did try editing a bit on other wiki projects but I didn’t find it to be a good experience. Glee^anon 13:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Can you please elaborate on the statement, "they also made bad faith accusations as a pillar of the report alleging that I have any support for child rape". I'd like to know exactly where those accusations were made before supporting or opposing this unblock request. I understand you have specifically refuted this accusation (here, in your request). --Yamla (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yamla, speaking for myself, I believe they are referring to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Benjiboi/Archive#07_November_2020 - phrases like Benjiboi has a history of questionable edits regarding children and homosexuality and Gleeanon409, like Benjiboi and proven sock Sportfan5000, has exhibited sympathy toward fringe views of pederasty. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have a question, although to be transparent, I don't expect to support this request no matter what the answer is. But in case other people find an answer useful: when you say you didn't find editing other wiki projects to be a good experience, please elaborate. What projects? What accounts? Did you end up in conflicts there too? Considering the socking here was still occurring less than a year ago - i.e. a 10+ year history of socking - and Gleeanon409 is blaming other people, not themselves, for that account getting blocked, I can't imagine what benefit there would be to accepting this request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• I recall this user well and I'd suggest an unblock on condition that Benjiboi agrees not to edit AFD or DRV, not to ask others to do so for them, not to accuse any other editor of anything at all, and not to edit biographies of living people whose notability relates to LGBT issues, this restriction to be reviewable on AN after a period of good faith high quality editing. Benjiboi, would you want to rejoin the ARS?—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• If the socking issue is cleared up & the individual is topic-banned from said areas? Then I'll support his return to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Frankly, we need to see some introspection and self awareness around the reasons for the blocks and ban before we can consider any amnesty. The above appeal is just full of accusations and blame for other editors. Deletionists? This is hardly a cesspit of homophobia and hatred of lgbtq+ editors so I think I’d like to see a lot more self-recognition around the reasons for the blocks and bans. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I can see that side of it as well. Benjiboi's editing style was intemperate, he genuinely believed that the evil deletionists were destroying the encyclopaedia and he was genuinely outraged and furious when people wanted to remove content about anything remotely connected to LGBT issues. That was ten years ago. We will now be dealing with a more mature person. We could extract the mea culpa of exoneration from him but, WP:EHP. Let him back, give him rope. Any sign of a crusade against the evil homophobic deletionists on his part should mean another decade in wikijail though!—S Marshall T/C 20:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • What exactly are we getting for such a generous attitide bearing in mind the user still harbours grudges from previous disputes. With consistent behaviour over more than 10 years I think we are way beyond saying the user needed to grow up. Leopards don't change their spits and I don't see why we should volunteer for the leopard to eat our collective face. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
      • He's coming back either way. This way we know which account he's using and we keep some control; the other way lies SPIs and other timesinks.—S Marshall T/C 15:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
        • "He's coming back either way" is like saying that since thieves are going to steal anyway, we may as well just leave all our doors unlocked. Plus, having a valid account didn't stop Benjiboi from socking before. Dealing with a tendentious editor who was recently unbanned is vastly more difficult then filing an SPI. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• I would consider the attempts to blame the editors who filed the SPI to be a disqualifying move in an unblock request. I don't really care what their motivation was, if they "are into such things", since they were absolutely correct. Further attacking them with claims of bad-faith accusations doesn't help, either. Grandpallama (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  I am thoroughly unimpressed at being pinged to their talkpage in response to my vote here so they can respond that they must defend themselves against accusations of "child rape" support, phrasing that nobody but them has used. Grandpallama (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'd decline unban per WP:NOTTHEM, as commented on above. Sandstein 20:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Without reading the ANI where they were banned or the SPI, and ONLY reading their unblock request, I've several issues:
  • had more than my share of negative attention both on and off wiki - why? Was it undeserved, or did you bring this upon yourself? Diffs?
  • put me squarely in the crosshairs of the perennial deletionist/inclusionist issues - again, why? Was it undeserved, or did you bring this upon yourself? Diffs?
  • it was obvious the attacks would continue - why was this obvious? Were you being targeted, or baiting them? Diffs?
  • there was an organized offsite effort - if this is even pertinent, can you link to this please? Why even mention this?
  • but was sleuthed out by editors who are into such things - what the hell does this even mean? Were you in the right or were you in the wrong? Diffs? Otherwise, a little personal attack-y if you ask me.
• I'm sorry, but this request fails to address any of the "why's," & without doing any research for them it, for the life of me, does not tell me one thing about why they were banned or how they have learned from it. Sorry, oppose. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Decline unban Back in 2010 100% of those participating in the ban discussion decided to ban this user. Reading that discussion, and this unban request, and looking at but a fraction of their sock puppetry history and disruption I think they were 100% right. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose In 2006 Benjiboi posted regarding the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (diff) at Talk:Nun. See explanation here (where Benjiboi signed as Banjeboi). That was a long time ago but people don't become helpful contributors after that. Nor does Wikipedia need more stuff such as this battle over gay porn and COI. Johnuniq (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unban. The same bad behavior was engaged in under the Gleeanon account. This is a serial sockpuppeteer and POV pusher; even now, are we really supposed to believe that they thought that returning as Gleeanon after being banned was proper? Plus, this same behavior pattern of tendentiousness, and of pushing of fringe views about pederasty, was abundantly shown at the November 2020 SPI here. I urge anyone here considering supporting an unblock to read the diff-sourced testimony of multiple editors there - it isn't that long, and it mainly concerns the recent editing under the Gleeanon account. If we allow ourselves to be fooled again into willingly letting them come back after we've seen these same problems in multiple accounts over more than a decade, then the shame is on us. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unban. I haven't looked through all of the links in the SPI but I found this discussion very concerning – it's obvious from reading the Introduction on Google Books that the source that they advocate using is pederastry apologetica, and I find it very hard to AGF about the suggestion that it's a reliable source. I would also urge editors considering an unban to look at this version of Desmond is Amazing, which is essentially entirely Gleeanon's work. Even aside from the POV editing promoting the concept of "child drag", I really don't think that it's appropriate (or in line with policy) to write such a detail-heavy article, based almost entirely on primary sources, about a child. I don't think that this is somebody we want editing Wikipedia, and certainly not editing content relating to living people or gender & sexuality topics. Wham2001 (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unban, for the many reasons pointed out by others. --Yamla (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unban. My reasons for supporting the indef block of Gleeanon at the sock report were primarily due to his recent behaviour with the Gleeanon account - the edit warring, deception and personal attacks. He showed up at Harry Hay and immediately archived the talk page to hide the fact he was the same user who had edited disruptively there. He removed admin warnings from his talk page to hide the situation from other editors.[42][43] He then proceeded to forum-shop to try to POV push on that article, for months on end. Then he did all that disruption at the Desmond is Amazing article. He engaged in grotesque personal attacks based in projection. When I warned him to stop whitewashing the Harry Hay article, as he kept removing sourced content about Hay's pedophile advocacy, he responded with, "Your devotion to pedophile content is interesting" - implying other editors were pedophiles because we were concerned about his promotion of what we saw as situations that were exploiting a child (Desmond) and Gleeanon's minimization of the harm done by the pedophile group North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose unban, with the same reason as Yamla. - Falcon ^talk 01:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

#WPWP is back

As can be seen in the abuse filter set up after the last AN discussion, there seems to be an uptick in #WPWP. Captions have not been improved. Having checked multiple editors, many seem to be literally copying the file name as captions, even if the file name is a French description. (This is explicitly outside of the rules at meta:Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021, for what it's worth.) I am not sure if significant action could be taken at this point, as the contest supposedly ends on the 31st, but at the very least there should be a default message template explaining the need for appropriate images with good captions that could be placed on participants' talkpages. Would anyone have placed similar messages in the past which could serve as a base? CMD (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

We throttle entries but I'm convinced many people aren't even reading the throttle message anyway, as they keep trying to make edits even though they're being disallowed with a message saying you can't make more edits. Eg here or here. So I'm not convinced talk messages will work. Still, I wrote up something at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-WPWP for the abusefilter message that could perhaps be useful as a base for a talk page message template.

Solution 2.1 is difficult to do well with the current way the filter works (won't bore you with the technical details), but a small technical change to the AbuseFilter extension could make it easier to implement elegantly for next year. Other than that, I don't really see what else we can do. Personally I'd say enwiki is a work in progress and some imperfect changes being added, that can later be iteratively improved by other edits (and repeat), is (to some degree) how this project works. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

If there's such opposition to this, why not simply ban it and block editors who violate? GiantSnowman 17:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Um, looking at technical contributors here, could we block any edits with a edit summary containing one of a defined set of hastags? Since the contests uses those for tracking it should A) get rid of most of them, and B) remove any incentive to circumvent it (since it wouldn't count). -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It is not the technical part that's a problem. Technically it is trivial to block. The dispute in the original discussion was whether we should block. It doesn't really matter this year since the contest ends in two days anyway. If work is done with the coordinators and perhaps with the devs, we could perhaps figure out alternate solutions for next year, if the community does feel like there is still a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of the contributions from specific editors were valid additions/made in good faith/showed understanding of image rules. We don't want to discourage those, but we do need to handle those editors that added images without considering all factors that go into that. I think we need to make sure that the contest, if run again, includes warnings to all uses that there are image use polices on en.wiki that must be followed, that en.wiki admins will likely be watching for activity in that area, and editors participating that are routinely failing to follow the policies (rather than the one or two missteps) will likely be blocked because of this monitoring. If necessary, we can develop a standard warning for the contest (or tiers thereof) that tells editors that may be making missteps of our policies of what to do and not to do when they participate. --Masem (t) 20:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Given that the co-ordinator at Meta is a banned editor on en.wp, the ddiscussion certainly won't take place here ... Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Is the throttling actually working? This filter, which has the throttle applied, has far fewer edits matching than this filter, which is tracking WPWP edits but isn't throttling them. There's certainly far more entries matching that filter than the 25 per day set as the throttle. Hut 8.5 20:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Won't the throttling filter only show the ones after the 25 limit (i.e. the ones that are disallowed)? One would therefore expect it to have a lot fewer hits. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, this editor has worked their way around the throttle by lower-casing the hashtag. Black Kite (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The filters use irlike when checking for string inclusion, which is case insensitive so the fact they're using lower case hastags doesn't matter. I suspect this is a bug in the abuse filter extension, probably something to do with caching at a guess, there have been similar problems in the past (see e.g. Phab:T240951, which is still unsolved). It might be worth opening a phab ticket. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Black Kite is right about the mechanics of a throttle filter (it'll only show the hits that were throttled). Re the lower-casing issue; as the IP mentions, the filter is irlike so it should be fine with any case variant. I tried using the editor's edit summary at testwiki (filter is identical to enwiki's, but with a lower throttle quantity there) and they were correctly logged in the filter. So I suspect the IP is right about a caching problem with the throttle. Perhaps Daimona Eaytoy can confirm if this is related. Like the filter in the phab ticket though, this also works over a 24 hour period. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader Hey, I'm writing here, because I saw phab:T240951#7317222. Note that the current filter #1158 is set to throttle by both username and IP address. That means users on highly dynamic ranges will never get the throttle. That is the case for at least one of the users who appear to bypass the throttling filter.

The obvious fix would be to just remove ip throttling, but...unfortunately, as https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter/+/691e47a4a6c83ecc3213991a89ad83f145dec9aa/includes/Consequences/Consequence/Throttle.php#170 says, setting throttle only to user will give you only one throttle counter shared for all IP addresses. Not sure if that's intentional (maybe not?), but given this campaign is targeted at logged-in editors, it might not matter for this case. Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)Edited --Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Martin Urbanec. I thought IP would've been blank for logged-in editors (thus only throttling by user, for logged-in editors). It seems looking at the code snippet, even for them it will still correspond to their underlying IP address? That behaviour doesn't seem ideal? From an abusefilter perspective, I'm not sure it makes sense as I don't see why the underlying IP a user account is connecting from should ever matter, but I may be missing a use case? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Another thought, why can't the user identifier just be by the username? Here is a change by an IP, and here is one by an account, with user_name filled in appropriately. Similar design can be used here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader If you remove ip from the list of throttle rules, it will work (approximately) that way. Correct solution would be to change getId (which returns same value for all anonymous users) with getName (which returns username/IP address) in the user throttle mode, but that's a breaking change. See phab:T289954, where I suggested exactly that. Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: I already made the change for the filter here per your original comment; I was more referring to why the filter extension behaves like that in the first place, which will remain a problem for other (non-WPWP) filters, though I guess that's better off at VPT or phab (phab:T289954 sounds like a good change). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I have adjusted ProcrastinatingReader's MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-WPWP into a shorter message at User:Chipmunkdavis/WPWP. Please feel free to adjust/use. CMD (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Not sure about that message. I think that any warning needs to clearly explain that the rate at which they can add images to articles has been limited, otherwise it's going to really confuse people when this message starts showing up and they find they can't edit anymore. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that they automatically see the Abusefilter message if they are going at too high a rate? I am trying to create something that can be easily dropped on talkpages, rather than editors having to type out a new message each time. If others feel it needs to be sterner I would not object to a change. CMD (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to make a friendlier message for use in the edit filter. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding next year, the WMF Growth Team is currently working on an "Add an image" structured task, where they have been quite good about collaborating with us and trying to avoid the pitfalls of WPWP (see the mw talk page). I hope that by next year, the feature will be live, and any campaign will be run through that rather than whatever the current tool is. Hopefully that will minimize problems. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Y'all want to know how ridiculous this crap is - See this diff (note, article is probably gonna be blanked soon as a copyvio). A WPWP editor adds an image essentially identical to an image right below it. The lack of care or even paying attention here blows my mind. If WPWP doesn't get its shit together for next year, I think it's time to ban the damn thing and hand out blocks like candy. If you're going to have a contest that promotes spamming images without paying attention to what you're doing, I think it's high time to run said contest out of a town on a rail. We're being used as a little game by WPWP, y'all. Hog Farm _Talk 05:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. If the blocking procedure for this is trivial (presume something automated linked to the edit filter?) then why don't we simply...do it. Those that listen and pay attention can get unblocked. I doubt we'd allow a 'who can make the most page moves in a day' contest, why is this any different? GiantSnowman 06:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ridiculous is the right word. As well as not putting up with this next year, consider recalling this disruption the next time they apply for a WMF grant for it. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, those newbies, so annoying. Let's just block them all and keep the site to ourselves, rather than welcoming them, encouraging them to contribute better, and growing our editor numbers. Mike Peel (talk) 07:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Not to worry, I'm sure you'd be along to unblock them all, Mike. – Joe (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: - I think there's a big difference between WP:BITE a productive newbie, and blocking someone who's spamming images as part of a cash contest. "Let's add as many of xxx as possible as quick as we can" is going to be disruptive, no matter who does it. You don't get an excuse to be disruptive just because your new and competing for a cash prize. Hog Farm _Talk 14:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

As they're editing for (potential) money, do they have to comply with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure? They are effectively being paid by the WMF to add these images (as there's a cash prize for it). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

The question whether Wikipedians in Residence are paid editors is a perennial shit storm generation topic. I do not expect this one to be any easier.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a good example of what I mentioned above, where the caption is literally just the image title. There must be a common origin to this bizarre practice, somewhere in the WPWP organisation. This obvious flaw continuing long after the WPWP organisers stated they would be involved in cleanup and monitoring is not positive for the outcomes of the initiative. CMD (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering how they were planning on doing monitoring an cleanup when they're sitebanned from en.wiki..... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Lots of terrible captions. Here it is completely unclear to the casual observer why the image has been added and what it has to do with the article. (It it easier if you can read enough Japanese to note that the Japanese caption (written right to left) mentions Shitaya). Yes, we should teach the user and not just complain. But in a turn-newbies-into-editors contest, shouldn't there be some people connected to the contest working on this to provide targeted help and oversight so it doesn't have to be done by people who are annoyed by the incomprehensible hashtag edit summaries? (Short-time financial incentives, by the way, sound like exactly the wrong way to attract long-time volunteers. But maybe that's just me). —Kusma (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Let's make things even more complicated: the "Project Manager and Coordinator" of WPWP is Isaac Olatunde[44], account name T Cells, and previously known as Wikicology. Now, Wikicology is since 2016 community banned by ArbCom[45], and on top of this explicitly "topic-banned from images" as well. Seems like the ideal person to organise this campaign... Fram (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

So organising a contest encouraging people to add images here seems like a violation of meatpuppetry to me- he's encouraging users to add images to a project he's sitebanned from. Is there any way we can outright ban #WPWP event from en.wiki in future years? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, that's quite concerning and absolutely a violation. Looking at grant proposal, was this just totally missed? Courtesy pinging Astinson (WMF), who is listed as the advisor—were you aware of the ban? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI: I have notified the grant committee in a thread on the grant page on Meta. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

No, this wasn't missed, but just ignored. Phil Bridger (talk)

Sandstein's read of the consensus at the last thread was to implement an edit filter with a cautionary message and a throttle, with banning the contest available as a last resort (and in the name of full disclosure: I voted for banning the contest in that discussion). I do not believe that the remedies we implemented have significantly improved the situation, and I think the harm and cost of volunteer time continues to outweigh the good. Also, to be blunt, I do not think this contest will significantly attract new editors - the quality of these edits suggests to me that most of these people just want the points (and, by extension, the money). Under any other circumstance we would just be handing out WP:NOTHERE blocks for that behavior. I move that we ban the contest on enwiki (setting the filter to disallow) until such a time as the organizers present a satisfactory plan to the community showing how they will modify the contest to reduce the disruption it causes. I considered BOLDly setting the filter to disallow, but given that we had a discussion just last month, I don't think it's appropriate for me to act unilaterally here. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm still sceptical about the proportion of disruptive edits in this contest, but I see two aspects that mainly count against its continuation. The first, most participants are editing for the money, and that doesn't bode too well with the volunteer nature of the projects. Second, the contest has not really managed to convert people into enwiki editors. I skimmed through the contribs of the most prolific WPWP participants, and none have made non-WPWP edits. Which means we're effectively just paying for edits, rather than this being a lasting outreach effort. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I left a comment on the talk page of the grant. It also seems, per the grant budget and talk page comments from the Grants Committee, that T Cells was paid $30/hr, 3 hours per day / 15 hrs per week, for a total of $7,200 USD. I will say that if one is being paid to run this project, then it is reasonable to expect greater effort/involvement in trying to resolve the issues. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Support ban of #WPWP. No evidence it's produced much useful content, whereas it has created lots of disruption and unhelpful content. That's even before you considered the paid and possible meatpuppetry issues with this contest. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• Probably not necessary to say, but Oppose ban for exactly the same reasons, and with exactly the same conditions the last time this exact discussion came up. If there's evidence that the average edit is a net negative, or that too high a proportion are negative (based more than a handful of anecdotes), and that the organizers are not going to go around and clean things up afterwards, and that no sufficient measures will be taken to address the problems next time, then we should start a ban discussion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS's concern about a block (suite)

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

---

The following is to complete a recent noticeboard discussion closed on Sunday morning, August 30, “PLUS ULTRA CARLOS's concern about a block”, originally “Inappropriate block or not - Persisting lack of block explanation - Potential WP:ADMINABUSE ?”. If to be inserted there, please go ahead. Please, note that the remedies requested in point 7 at 'Editor's concern removed from noticeboard', also closed the day after, were precisely to allow the follow-up of the first discussion thread and not to get anyone's scalp, i.e. reopening the section or else. I apologize for not having been clear on that.

It is not the undersigned's intention at all but, if anyone thinks dealing with this post may bother him/her or waste his/her time, please stop reading.

I now understand and fully accept that it was a good block, considering the additional explanations of the blocking administrator, aiming to prevent future disruptive behavior even if the war-edit was ended and things were calmed down. I understand that the administrator perceived the risk of “present” disruption was not clearly ended and that's fine. The same then should apply for the appeal. So both are OK since based in the administrators' perception, not the blocked undersigned editor's.

Please, consider to somehow mention this in any similar block decision, specially concerning newcomers unfamiliar with WP policies. In my case, it would have been understood and accepted at once, provided that reading Wikipedia:Blocking policy blocking policy (in particular the Goals and Purpose section and WP:NOPUNISH) really gave me another impression. Thank you for your understanding. For the same reason, the administrator's perception, another decision could had also been possible, whether to block for a longer period...or not to block at all.

Other issues raised by some administrators are addressed hereafter. Remember to stop reading if you are not in the mood.

I learned vandalism is deemed a personal attack from administrators for it is not mentioned in the WP:NPA, while it could be (only) inferred from 3rd point of « How not to respond to Vandalism » section. To avoid confusion to editors and future newcomers, please consider to clearly indicate in those pages that the accusation of vandalism is well a personal attack.

Regarding another administrator's analysis, the hole-digging stuff: doubting about the vandalic nature of an action is not stupid unless anyone wondering about potential vandalism or coming to that conclusion is being intermittently stupid. As per the semantics, “may break” means “potential break”, conditional tense is better than present, i.e. asserting something is stupid. Please remember WP:BITE.

Then, there are some unwarranted assertions about continuing to claim vandalism. Please, note that the warning was posted in my talk at 10h19 and I never claimed vandalism thereafter, whether to contest the block or elsewhere. This was very easy to check, as it was the absence of such argument in my appeal.

Regarding comments on the article edits and sources...no problem to improve them. Keep in mind, that about 99% of my entries for several countries presented at least one source, some apparently not qualifying as best sources....while no less than 50% of the rest of the article entries have none...

Considering the article content is a list of entries introduced with superlatives, i.e. First, Most, Best, Largest, Oldest, etc. or their antonyms according to published rankings, anyone get the point for criticizing the use of “Best”??? Then, facts are facts, whether perceived as promotional or have indeed a promotional dimension as rankings, the article's object, irremediably have.

I hope you find the above useful. Should some of these questions be further dealt in the editor or article talk, do not hesitate. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Move to block PLUS ULTRA CARLOS indefinitely, as WP:NOTHERE. They were previously given the following advice by Daniel: "if you don't drop this and go do something productive, you will most likely be topic-banned or blocked rather expeditiously." They have refused to drop this, and so should be blocked rather expeditiously. --Yamla (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree the time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass is long past for this user and their perceived slight. How much attention do they want over this? They took it much too far previously and now they are resuming with this wall of text. I read the whole thing and frankly I want my 5 minutes back please. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

TL;DR - "it was a good block".

Is an indef WP:NOTHERE block really the only way to bring this navel gazing to an end? Drop the stick. Cabayi (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

PLUS ULTRA CARLOS indefinitely blocked

Based on my previous warning and off the back of the previous discussions, I have indefinitely blocked this editor per NOTHERE. I welcome review of the block. Daniel (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

[Pinging Yamla, HighInBC, Cabayi as they had previously contributed to this thread before my block. Daniel (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)]

I would have blocked them myself if I had seen this first. Cultivation of grievances and using noticeboards to repeatedly continue content-related bickering at extreme length is disruptive. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel. I support your block, obviously. --Yamla (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

No argument with the block from me. Our interlocutor's prolixity, persistence, and, as already noted, querulousness is tedious, intentionally so. Cabayi (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Good block. NOTHERE editors take time from editors who are trying to build/improve the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 00:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes good block. I was not sure of they were trolling or just genuinely that way. Either way not productive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I've had a number of very challenging interactions with this user in mainspace. I got the impression that they are sincere - not trolling - but that they have a very hard time communicating concisely and taking on board corrections or contradictions. Colin M (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No question about it in my mind, this was a good block. Doug Weller talk 09:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse, obviously. This user has done absolutely nothing but whine about this for the last three weeks, after being told repeatedly that their block for edit warring was valid and their complaint has no merit. They should convince us they're going to actually participate in building an encyclopedia before we let them back. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 12:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

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

IP block evasion

Five days ago I blocked an IP for a personal attack. Today, the user posted again from another IP address. The block was for a week, and five days have passed. There is no behavioral problem in today's post (other than the block evasion). So, does today's post constitute a block evasion, and, if so, is it worth doing anything about it? The user says they can hop IP addresses at will, so blocking them again would just be playing whack-a-mole. - Donald Albury 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block; I did so now. The talk page is now semi-protected for a week, enforcing the block. Looking at the history of the talk page, the risk of collateral damage is low, and the deleted revisions are egregiously unwanted enough in this community that properly enforcing a simple one-week block is the minimum we need to do here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for dealing with that. I didn't think of the sockpuppet angle. - Donald Albury 20:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Inactive extended confirmed users

Some vandalism due to compromised extended confirmed users was reported at ANI (permalink). To reduce the risk from compromised administrator accounts, the admin right is removed from inactive admins (see WP:INACTIVE). Should something similar happen with extended confirmed users? That last link includes: See Special:ListUsers/extendedconfirmed for a list of the 72,489 extended confirmed users. According to WP:ECP, 2878 pages require the extendedconfirmed right to edit. It appears that a bot could list extendedconfirmed users and determine which had not edited for 12 months. It looks like an admin bot could remove that right from inactive users, and the right could be restored by an admin on request if the user returned. This is not a proposal—I'm just flying a kite to see what people think. Would it be worth pursuing this, or do we wait for next time? Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the scope of the issue compromised accounts caused? If it's a common problem, this seems reasonably harmless, and easily dealt with by WP:PERM upon reactivation. Would it need a bot, or could it trigger automatically the same way the addition of the permission is triggered automatically? Is autoconfirmed worth similar consideration? CMD (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The traditional pattern is that several accounts will be compromised (by the same vandal) when there is a high profile article. For example, the 9/11 attacks or the US presidential election. It's more common than we'd like. We'd want some sort of protocol for re-granting. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this can be approached somewhat intelligently, though maybe not 100%, by checking if they list any email addresses or social media accounts on their user page, perhaps in the history of their user page. This has been the usual vector. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If it falls afoul of WP:BEANS, don't tell me, or email me privately, but are these compromised accounts being taken by password guessing or via control of people's emails? In many of these cases people will have created their passwords before XC rights were implemented, so the security of their account would not really be important unless they had other advanced permissions (there was little reason for these accounts to be compromised). I'm glad we don't have any password rules on Wikipedia (many, such as ones requiring a special character or a change every 90 days are actively counterproductive to cybersecurity), but perhaps in the future we could require some kind of minimum password strength for an account to receive XC rights. I guess we'd need WMF help there, and only want to make such a change if we really are seeing a lot of XC compromised accounts. — Bilorv (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

To give a bit more context: Accounts do get sometimes compromised by password guessing, but in this case and many other cases, re-used passwords and database leaks are the apparent source. Almost every one I've seen has had an account on another website linked on their userpage, often an email address. There are bug requests to check passwords against Have I Been Pwned? or similar (see eg phab:T189641), but I think they've been stalled forever. Also, autoconfirmed accounts are often compromised as part of this. However raising protection to EC for high profile articles does at least provide a reasonable option which isn't full protection, so aiming this at EC seems like a reasonable balance. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This seems like a really key point. There are a ton of EC editors, so adding extra security measures like inactivity removals for them will always necessarily have tradeoffs for a large number of editors. But the number of EC editors whose password has been leaked and who reuse that password for Wikipedia is much smaller. I think the best approach for this would be to pressure the WMF to resolve that phab ticket, and then to use it accordingly. One option would be to force all compromised active users with AC/EC to choose a new password the next time they log in, and to remove the advanced permissions of all compromised inactive users. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Trying to do stuff with compromised inactive users seems to make the resolution more difficult and expensive and seems unnecessary especially if the WMF has a per user salt. If this is desired, seems better to just deal with it on logon. It's not like it matters if an account is technically compromised without a logon so just remove permissions when someone tries to logon with a forced password change/compromised account. Nil Einne (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Forcing inactive users to change their password when they next log on won't do much, as the hackers we're concerned about already have access to their email. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we should focus on EC permissions. When 2FA was introduced we were primarily focused on admin passwords and password security - I don't think EC even existed at that time. Regular users who had registered casually long ago and eventually attained EC status would not be so security-conscious and it would not occur to them that a reused or compromised password posed any concern. EC status is a largely invisible process - there's no obvious transition to "my account has a higher level of trust and I need to take security more seriously." One immediate measure could be to mass-message EC editors about password security. This wouldn't reach inactive editors, but it's an easy step to raise awareness and induce at least some editors to think about their passwords. Acroterion (talk) 13:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps an automated process like automatically changed from [everything] to none after 2 years of inactivity, and restored to previous levels after 100 edits and 30 days? I guess if it would be too much trouble with WMF, we could authorize an admin bot to go around [none]-righting every account that hasn't edited for two years, once a year. (Bots are not technically restricted from granting perms, are they?) Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This might be worth doing, but I don't see how it would have helped in this particular instance, as the compromised account was abandoned before the ECP permission was created, and it received the extended confirmed user right on the same day that it was ( presumably) compromised.Jackattack1597 (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

As EC is automatic, ECP just isn't a very high protection level. I don't think revoking it will help much against dedicated vandals, but it will annoy some returning good contributors. Doing nothing looks like the best option here. —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree doing nothing is the best option. Incidents line this happen not even every year, and negative aspects of every proposed solution outweigh the benefits.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Happens too infrequently to require setting up anything systematic right now. El_C 18:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that we don't want to do something that deters inactive editors from returning, I don't see a problem having an option on some of our antivandalism tools that draws extra attention to "first 20 edits from an account that has been globally inactive for at least a year". The returnee need not be aware that their edits are being looked at. ϢereSpielChequers 21:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This would be a good use case for edit tags. Something like "Returning editor" would be a useful tag not only for anti-vandalism but editor retention efforts. I'm not sure this could be done easily with the edit filter, but with the editor-retention angle we might be able to get the Growth team interested in a server-side application to tag edits similar to the "Revert" tag. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned with new page reviewer and maybe autopatrolled. I'm not aware of any instances off the top of my head of spammers compromising an account with one of these rights to get UPE through, but it's not impossible. Also, those are situations where the notability/article expectation standards are continually evolving to some degree, so someone who's been out of the loop too long may not be up to speed. Hog Farm _Talk 00:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Rather than limiting it to just extended confirmed how about defining a point at which we consider an account to be "abandoned" (I don't know, say 5 or 10 years of no contributions anywhere) at which point we remove all advanced permissions from the account? There'd need to be some way of requesting restoration of permissions if someone returns, ideally with some kind of way of verifying the account is still in control of the person who created it. Both the accounts compromised yesterday hadn't actually edited in over a decade. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  5 years of any permission without using the permission would seem reasonable to me, but may be too complicated.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I wasn't thinking "no evidence of using a specific permission", I was thinking "no evidence of using Wikipedia at all". I don't think there's much risk with active users having rights they don't use very often, but if someone hasn't edited or performed a logged action in 5 - 10 years across all wikis I think it's safe to assume the account is abandoned, and leaving the account with permissions is more of a security risk than a benefit. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• What about auto removing and revdeleting every email on a user's userpage that hasn't edited for 4-5 years? I think that could be a possible solution. Cutlass^Ciera 12:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think that would really make much difference, once somethings been on Wikipedia for any significant amount of time it's basically impossible to hide - it'll still be all over the place on mirror sites and will be available in historic database dumps. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I guess then nothing is the best option, it usually gets undone really quickly and maybe it doesn't need to have such a major change like using an adminbot. I know Google indexes pages and if someone (like an individual, not the massive multimedia companies that Google will bow down to) leaves something they don't want it's incredibly hard to get off of their search results. Cutlass^Ciera 16:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• If we're going to talk about activity requirements at this level of permission then we should just talk about activity requirements for all accounts. Automatically softblock any account that hasn't edited in a year (or whatever reasonable time) and require some kind of authentication (email confirmation, CAPTCHA, I don't know) the next time the account logs in, or something like that. ECP is a purely content permission, you can't really do much damage with ECP that you wouldn't be able to do anyway, and anything you can do is easily detected and reversed. I don't see the need for extra security for just that permission. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  As someone who returned (more than once) after a long absence I'd have been very put out to find I was blocked because of inactivity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that removing EC from inactive accounts will be much of a benefit. The reason admin accounts have this is because they can edit the main page, and can perform much more disruptive actions (i.e. blocking, deleting) such as range blocking a active large range, or granting themselves edit filter rights and then making a filter which blocks all edits. The damage an admin account can do which is compromised is much more than an EC account can do. As such the automatic removal of admin rights is in itself necessary to reduce the possible high damage that a compromised admin account could do. However, for just EC rights I don't see that the risk of a compromised EC account merits the extra work admins would have to perform to regrant the rights for inactive users becoming active again. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It has been explained above that an inactive editor may not have the editconfirmed right but will receive it automatically after they resume activity and make a few edits. That makes my scheme ineffective. However, those who saw the issue behind this might think that strong protective measures were required. The attacker planned well and uploaded shock images then added them to 9/11 topics at exactly the time that thousands of affected people would be viewing them. Yes, that's just vandalism—welcome to Wikipedia—but it is also a warning of what to expect as other means of trolling become more difficult. There are 391 accounts in Category:Compromised accounts. I believe that over 30 admin accounts were compromised when word got around about how easy that was and I was hoping for some mechanism to protect sensitive topics from attack. Johnuniq (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Changes to functionary team

At his request by email to the committee, the Oversight permissions of Mkdw are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Mkdw for his service as an Oversighter. Maxim_(talk) 13:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to functionary team (2)

Attempt to influence article with money

This is sort of odd, but I figured I should tell someone.

I tagged the article Larry Dvoskin for puffery and unencyclopedic tone. (I have no interest in the article or any idea who Larry Dvoskin was, I was just going through the backlog of links to deprecated source Crunchbase.)

Someone purporting to be Larry Dvoskin has been emailing me, upset about this, and disputing the tag. I ignored this, but the emailer just tried to send me GBP£80 donation to my music blog, to my wife's PayPal.

The payment has been refunded. (I have the screenshots of the transactions if needed.)

However, this feels very like someone's trying to set me up for an accusation of taking payment for editing. I'm posting to state that this is not the case.

Is there anywhere to notify stuff like this? - David Gerard (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. How ridiculous! The only thing I have to say to Larry Dvoskin is: I'll remove the tags for £40. Levivich 15:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

£20. El_C 15:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I've been here 17 years and this was actually a new one on me. I added a note to Talk:Larry_Dvoskin#Possible_attempt_to_influence_article_with_money as well - David Gerard (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This is how to respond to "editing bribery":

1. Take the money: in this case, £80 to remove tags.
2. Remove the tags, and, of course, include an accurate edit summary: "Removing tags because I was paid £80."
3. When another editor reverts your edit, contact the person who paid: "Those bastards reinstated the tags! Better send me another £80 to remove them."
4. Repeat.

Think about it, colleagues, we could all quit our jobs!! Levivich 16:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Bad strategy. I'd insist on payment in ₿. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

We should just streamline it and add to article history entries a "$" link where people can pay a fee to have the edit reverted. Of course the community would code a bot to reinstate any such edits, at least until the next sucker comes along and pays. This would be the most effective fundraiser in Wikipedia's history. Levivich 16:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

And here I am, I would have done it for Tree fiddy. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I am so editing the wrong articles.--Berig (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, you might want to try Meta:Trust and Safety maybe? Them or Arbcom (via email)?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait, you guys are being paid? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As revealed recently, the WMF pays me in hugs & kissess. But the Chipmunk Army is funded by hush-hush sources. El_C 19:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

You have been mislead, I haven't even received my allotted physical affection. CMD (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

In work, yeah... Enterprisey (talk!) 07:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

the reward for a job well done is another three jobs - David Gerard (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's peculiar. Anyway, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Dvoskin. Sandstein 20:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

On the other hand I would like to add that it is possible that Larry himself is innocent, and some other parties "attempting to bribe" hoping that Larry would take the blame. Everybody can claim to be somebody. I could claim to be Donald Trump and "bribe" people, creating bad name for Donald Trump. SunDawntalk 13:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

yep, this is why I said "someone purporting to be" - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would work. I mean, who could possibly believe that St. Donald would ever do anything bad? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Ip 66.210.5.133 harassing on own userpage

So i was casually reviewing recents and found a userpage that the person i mentioned User:66.210.5.133 decided it was good to try to harass me by basically reverting everything and trying to get me to react. I do want to send a request to block him from editing his talk page and maybe extend to inf block. MoonlightVector 17:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Without going into the merits of yoinking their talk page access, I will note (for the record) that they are perfectly within their rights to blank their own talk page, so edit warring to keep the content is not something you should really be doing. I'll look at the talk page in a second and see if anything needs to be done (either from an RD or TPA perspective). Primefac (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

TPA removed by Widr. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Image visibility: Technical + copyright question

I have received this request on my talk page. The file in the discussion is here. Here are my 2 questions:

1. The file is from the Vatican Library. It is a scan of an ancient written document (papyrus, dated c. 200 AD). While the website states that "All rights reserved. The contents of this site are protected by copyright. Neither the text nor the images may be reproduced, in any form, without the authorisation of the Vatican Library, 00120, Vatican City.", it seems that this specific file is actually, by its nature, in the public domain. Could anyone confirm or not?

2. While I can see (admin rights) the original file, I do not see how I can revert the current file to the original one. The only option I seem to have is to download the original one and to reupload it. Isn't there a more straightforward way to do it?

Thanks! Olivier (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I am the person who made the request. I believe the Vatican website is simply copyfrauding. See also c:Template:PD-scan-100. Veverve (talk) 04:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Not quite. The Vatican is its own country. It may be PD in the US but it may not be PD in Vatican City. MER-C 18:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have transferred it already, now after reading your remarks MER-C, I am not so sure I should have done so.— Diannaa (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Vatican city rules on Commons - "Exclusive right on “purely documentary” reproductions of cultural heritage for 70 years from the fixation (art. 4)" - now what does fixation mean - if it's the scan then its still in copyright.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we keep a copy on en.wiki as{{PD-US-expired-abroad}} or do we have to go back to fair use? I have restored the local copy and marked it as such for now but will take it back to fair use if that's what needs to be done. — Diannaa (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Diannaa: From what I read here: "A work is considered fixed when it is stored on some medium in which it can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated. For example, a song can be fixed by writing it down on a piece of paper. The paper is the medium on which the song can be perceived, reproduced and communicated. It is not necessary that the medium be such that a human can perceive the work, as long as the work can be perceived by a machine." So, I think the fixation of this manuscript was in the Antiquity once the scribe wrote it. Veverve (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated the Commons version for deletion. Hopefully the Commons admins are more experienced with obscure things like Vatican copyright.

• commons:File:Epiousion Papyrus 75.png: Commons version
• File:Epiousion Papyrus 75.png: Local version — Diannaa (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

To assert copyright, one has to create something. Vatican has not created Papyrus 75, and creating a replica (scan) of a public domain work (at the time of the scanning) does not drive out of the public domain; and, of course, you can always make a red line in Paint, which also does not drive the work out of public domain, as it does not really constitute analysis. I agree with Veverve that it is typical copyfraud, and that Vatican's assertion should be ignored as ridiculous. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

There's now a discussion open at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Epiousion Papyrus 75.png. Any further comments should be made there.— Diannaa (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Mike Peel

In December 2020 (Link to whole conversation), ClemRutter was indefinitely blocked by Diannaa for copyright violations per established practice, after having previously received five copyright warnings. Mike Peel objected to this at the time, calling it excessive and claimed it happened "without even a warning", despite indefinite blocks of those with several copyright warnings over a long period of time being longstanding practice. Two hours later, Mike Peel accepted Clemrutter's unblock request and unblocked them with the rationale "Unblocking based on the past trend of amicably resolving the issues, which I trust will also happen here, and than an indef block seems really excessive in this situation. Let's see what happens at CCI for the longer term issue." I saw this at the time and believed it was an WP:INVOLVED action that he should not have done, given his interactions and apparent friendship with Clemrutter. I didn't do anything at the time as I didn't want to step on Diannaa's toes and thought that things might blow over and be fine, despite most previous experiences suggesting otherwise. A Contributor copyright investigation was filed at the time and Mike Peel commented "Just to note that I have unblocked ClemRutter. The specific issue here seems to be with Thinking School, but I haven't checked past edits by the user. Thanks.", which worried me given the specific issue was not with Thinking School, and that he had not checked the user's past edits when unblocking. I opened the investigation (now at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20210111) and me and Diannaa have found several more violations. Given the several book sources cited, many of which are offline and cannot be easily accessed for text comparison, the CCI will be very difficult to complete.

In July 2021 Clemrutter received another warning for copyright violations, this time on Integrated education. This was labeled as a final warning, and Clemrutter was again indefinitely blocked by Diannaa on 4 August 2021 for copyright violations on Northern Ireland Curriculum. The ~2000 edits since the December 2020 unblock have been added to the CCI and will also need to be reviewed for issues. Discussion is currently ongoing on how to appeal this block on their talk. Had they not been unblocked, the issue could have been resolved at the time, and the current situation and block would not have happened- the unblock set ClemRutter up to be blocked again.

After the block, I questioned Mike Peel on his talk with slightly altered version of what I wrote above. The resulting discussion can be seen here; I encourage any reading this to go and read it all. I was concerned with the involved unblock given his board candidacy, and I found his responses to me and later Diannaa and Ponyo to be very lacking, and repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding. Mike Peel repeatedly claimed that Diannaa should have not done the indef herself and she should have taken it to ANI or Arbcom- "My point is that Clem *shouldn't* be a special case - indef blocking is a big thing that should get ANI or arbcom support, unless it's clearly WP:SNOW and/or an intractable user problem.", which I thought was a problematic and incorrect interpretation of the blocking/reporting policy. Ponyo also noted issues as well, saying "Reading through this thread gives me the strong impression that you unblocked Clem because Diannaa didn't handle the blocking as you personally would have, not because there was anything procedurally incorrect with her block according to policy. There are many statements that you've made above that also lead me to believe that you are out of touch with how and when many active administrators on this project choose to use an indefinite block." Mike Peel responded to this with "Look at it another way: I believe my unblock following the unblock request was per policy. We're talking about the general issue in more detail in this discussion, and I'll happily admit that I'm expressing my opinions here rather than quoting policy. Thanks", and after a response from Diannaa, there have been no updates to the discussion for a week, even though there are still unaddressed concerns. I have pondered on whether or not I should bring this here, since I'm unsure what actions to take or if any action is needed, but I think this is something the community should know about given the current board elections and to have more eyes on the CCI and ClemRutter's situation. And as a reminder for other admins, please be careful when unblocking users for copyright violations. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my actions and my comments (but please read them in full and in context, which doesn't seem to be the case with the quotes here.). I'm interested to see what other admins think to this situation, and my actions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

From a review of the (in full) talk page discussions linked above, I'd say Diannaa is essentially completely correct, and Mike is mostly wrong. Diannaa's first indef block was fine. Mike's unblock was technically within policy, but outside accepted practice (unilaterally, against the desire of the blocking admin, based on an incorrect assumption of a lack of warnings). Diannaa's second indef block is fine. Mike does not seem to have a good understanding of how blocking works, and shouldn't be telling other people what is required for blocking/unblocking until he re-educates himself. In particular, he is wrong that an admin should go to ANI or ArbCom before indef blocking someone. He is also wrong that Diannaa should have tried shorter blocks first. He is also wrong that Diannaa should have stepped aside and have some other admin take over. He is also wrong that CR was blocked without warnings. I will say that bringing up Mike's WMF board candidacy is probably a red herring. Finally, if Mike thinks Moneytrees' summary is inaccurate ("but please read them in full and in context, which doesn't seem to be the case with the quotes here"), he should say where. If it actually is in context, then claiming without evidence that it is inaccurate is unethical. As for what to do about it, I don't know, it depends on whether they take feedback here at AN onboard. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Thanks for the review. I'm listening. Some points in response: with ANI or ArbCom, my point with that comment was that admins shouldn't feel like they are going at it alone - if they're coming across problems like this, then it's worth getting other admins to have a look as well, both with the specific issue (to get more opinions on the case), and also generally (to get more admins involved in copyvio patrolling). Note the use of the word 'should', not 'must' - but on hindsight, using 'could' would have been better. With the quotes above, it was specifically with the last quote, where "... was per policy" and "... rather than quoting policy" both appear but were about separate things (first about the unblock; second about the extended comments), and I think quoting them together confuses the issue. thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this was a terrible unblock. Not only was it based on an incorrect understanding (that CR had not been sufficiently warned), but MP clearly misunderstood the reasons for the block (it wasn't about the Thinking School article) and even admitted that he "hadn't checked the user's other edits". Simply, like BLP issues, we don't mess about with copyright blocks after a user has been repeatedly warned, regardless of how prolific a contributor they are - they should be indefinite. I doubt if there's anything we can do about the original unblock eight months later, but what is very clear is that MP should certainly not be taking further administrative action regarding Clem Rutter, and probably needs to read up more clearly on the more complex areas (i.e. not simple vandalism etc.) of blocking and unblocking before taking any more actions. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Moneytrees and Black Kite: You keep saying 'it wasn't about the Thinking School article', but Diannaa specifically said the block was caused by that article. There's a wider issue, sure, but the first block was clearly linked to that article. I've already said that I don't plan to unblock Clem again as things stand, and have already been doing more background reading. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't it surprise me that this editor has been an administrator for 14 years? Isn't it time we took a bit more seriously suggestions of term limits for admins? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

We have plenty of veteran admins who use their tools regularly and are very familiar with how to use them. The problem mostly comes with veteran admins who don't use the tools very often (Mike, for example, has used block/unblock precisely four times in the last ten years). We would be better off with an activity limit, rather than a term limit, but this has been rejected in the past as it's too easy to game. Black Kite (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with BK. Mike Peel has been very active, very productive, and very useful. This is not a case of legacy admins clinging to the bit. It's not about lack of activity overall, and not a case of someone being an admin too long. It's not even a matter of someone not using block/unblock much. It's a case of someone not using the block/unblock button much, and then using it in a situation where they didn't research the situation, and then lecturing an admin who is familiar with blocking/unblocking. It's not important that an admin be active in all areas, but it is important that an admin know what they don't know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger, Black Kite, and Floquenbeam: Just to point out that I regularly use the admin tools for things that aren't logged (e.g., I have a bot that creates Wikidata items for articles, and it's useful to go back and look at deleted articles to see what happened to help debug the bot), for editing protected pages (particularly in the template domain), and for deletion (although not as much as I would have liked, since I've mostly been working in other areas and have limited time/energy). I'm not too active with blocking/unblocking, I'm familiar with the technical tools but - clearly - not all aspects of the social side of it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not looked at the blocks/unblocks, and do not have time to do it right now, but if we managed to solve a similar problem with Elisa.rolle, may be we can solve the problem here without indefinite blocks? The user has 40+K edits, which are hopefully not all represent copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You can see by his talk page that ClemRutter cannot yet be unblocked even as of today, because as far as I can tell from his remarks there, he still doesn't understand why he was blocked or what he did wrong, and has an inadequate understanding of how copyright law applies to Wikipedia editing.— Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Since that editor was indefinitely blocked for an extended period of time, it may not be a good example of how to deal with the situation without an indefinite block. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I think what Ymblanter is referring to is User:Valereee/ER, the mentoring program headed by several experienced users that helped get Elisa unblocked. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sure, it could provide a path to end an indefinite block. Since there is already an indefinite block in place, though, the connotation of solving the problem without indefinite blocks is to lift it summarily, and it's a bit tricky to draw that conclusion from the example, which also had a failed appeal. I agree that it's always good to see editors willing to participate in learning initiatives, from both the teaching and learning sides. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've been aware of ClemRutter's latest block, and deeply saddened by it. I hadn't been aware of the earlier block, but reading through it, I can't fault either of the blocks, and I don't understand the December unblock. FWIW, I was lucky enough to 'meet' Clem last year, at an on-line London meetup on Zoom, and I don't for a second doubt his good faith, or his commitment to our project. He taught me a few things, and I was inspired by his passion. I can understand why MP might want to see CR unblocked (I do too), but that has to come on the back of some serious undertakings from CR to take the copyright policy seriously, and to take on board the feedback he's been given in the last few months. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, ClemRutter is clearly in good faith and does not strike me as someone who has intentionally done wrong, I would like to see them unblocked and not having issues with copyright for sure. What I would like to happen is: Mike Peel acknowledges the erroneous unblock and apologizes to Diannaa, ClemRutter is able to understand the copyright issues and gets unblocked, and the CCI gets all nice and cleaned up. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 22:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • At the moment I feel able to offer a limited (but not full - see below) apology to @Diannaa: I apologise for interfering in your workflow when dealing with CCI cases by making the unblock in this case.
      That said, I am generally disappointed that the conversation that I explicitly expected to see after the unblock did not happen. This is to both sides: I was expecting Clem to be much more proactive in figuring out what the problems were, and active in fixing them. I was also expecting Diannaa to follow up with the issues on Clem's talk page or at CCI. That seems to be happening now, after the second block, which is good to see (and this is part of why I don't personally plan to unblock them again). However, I still think this should have been able to happen without one party being blocked and having to have their answers copy-pasted to other pages when necessary. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Diannaa Would there be a problem changing the block to a partial block from article space? That would allow CR to participate in discussions easily, without (I think?) any risk of his introducing more copyvios. Just a thought. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Copyright violations on talk pages, drafts etc are still copyright violations. Hut 8.5 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Oh, yes, totally - I'd like to hope though that CR would have the sense not to start putting copyvios on talk pages. At the moment people are having to copy/paste his comments into discussions, which seems unnecessary - it's not like he's a vandal who's going around abusing people on talk. Perhaps keep blocked from article/draft/file spaces, but allow engagement on talk until he's shown that he understands the concerns? Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Given that CR has already been indeffed once for copyright violations, and carried on anyway, I don't think that being blocked is going to get the message across by itself. Hut 8.5 12:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Mentoring sounds like a good idea on paper, but so far I have not been getting through to him as to what he needs to do differently, so I may be the wrong person to do the mentoring? Or perhaps he believes he was right and I am wrong, and will suddenly see the light and unblock? See for example this post of August 20, where he misinterprets how much copying is allowed, states that the patrolling admin must get consensus on the talk page before removing violations of the copyright policy, and states that the violation that got him blocked was "so minor that it is beneath the threshold of concern". He has not yet posted an unblock request either. So there's no clear path forward at this point. I haven't formed an opinion of the usefulness of a partial unblock; so far I have copied two posts to file talk pages for two files I have nominated for deletion, that's not a big inconvenience (at this point, anyways). — Diannaa (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Diannaa, OK, understood, it was just a thought. I feel very warmly about Clem following our face-to-face discussion last year, he is passionate about education and is very much aligned with our mission of disseminating information. His failure to take on board what you have been telling him about copyright violations is baffling to me however, and I can entirely understand your frustration with the situation - I think you have been very professional in how you are interacting with him, given the situation. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Mike Peel, it doesn't seem realistic for you to expect that I would take over the task of mentoring after you unblocked after two hours without consulting me or even notifying me. I was angry and I walked away. I guess that was a mistake on my part; I didn't think it through that I would likely be the person who would end up cleaning up the resulting mess. I am still angry, too. Fact: Clem won't figure out what the problems were or be responsive to teaching until he admits there is a problem. That still hasn't happened. — Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      @Diannaa: You already seemed to have taken on that job (not quite mentoring, but the role of correction) by warning + blocking them. My unblock shouldn't have changed that IMO - or at least that's what I expected. A clear message saying that you were walking away from it would have been useful. Sorry that you're angry - but that also isn't helpful here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

      Mike Peel, If you step into a situation and overrule somebody by doing things your way, you should be prepared to own the issue from then on. If you don't believe me, try cleaning the company fridge wherever you work and see who ends up doing it next time. MrOllie (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Honestly that unblock is a slap in the face to editors who deal with copyright issues. Nobody should be unblocking someone with a history of copyright problems without first making very sure that there aren't going to be any problems in the future. The unblock happened after a mere two hours with no attempt to discuss with the blocking admin or anyone else apart from this, which erroneously claimed the user hadn't been warned (they'd been warned five times) and criticised the block for being indefinite (which is standard for copyright blocks). Now there are another 2,000 edits which need to be checked for copyright problems, which is probably one of the most tedious tasks on Wikipedia. Hut 8.5 12:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously a bad unblock, and reading Mike, who has used the block button five times in the last 14 years, trying to lecture Dianaa (6301 blocks) and Moneytrees (278 blocks in 18 months) on the blocking policy and CCI is embarrassing. But the elephant in the room is why Mike decided to step in and make this, as far as I can tell, the first unblock request he has ever processed. There has recently been some discussion of whether there's a 'generational' difference in how strict admins are about WP:INVOLVED, but the idea that Mike is a purely disinterested party here just isn't credible. I wouldn't have thought that we'd have to have an explicit policy saying "don't use your admin tools to protect your wiki-friends", but maybe we do. – Joe (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• One concerning part of this, if my understanding is correct, is that there is an admin whose only unblock in 14 years was, by their own admission, of someone who they met at a wikimeetup and consider a wikifriend, without first investigating all the facts and based on a misapprehension of those facts, over the opposition of the blocking admin, and without consulting the community or any other admin (for a third opinion) first. But what is even more concerning than that is that 8 months later, MP still stands by his actions and comments. Levivich 14:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should normalize that, if you find out someone's blocked because you're watching their talk page, it shouldn't be you pushing the unblock button. —Cryptic 15:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    It would make sense to me, though it is probably impossible to enforce.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Not my only unblock, see my block log. It's rare, but I do unblock sometimes. (I actually thought I'd unblocked more than is on my unblock log here, but maybe that was on other wikis.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Mike Peel: Your first time responding to an unblock request, though? Your other two unblocks were of bots without an explicit appeal and, since you bring it up, both were re-blocked shortly afterwards. But anyway, no response to my actual point, that you were obviously intervening in an area of admin work you normally have zero interest in, because you're friendly with ClemRutter? – Joe (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• In addition to the apparent bias, lack of pre-unblock research, and post unblock follow-up by Mike Peel (if you as an administrator think there needs to be follow up, don't blame others that it might not have occurred to your satisfaction, you do it). Mike Peel should understand that any "injury" runs not just to Diannaa, it runs to community, the copyright holders, and to the unblocked user, as copyright infringement has both ethical and legal dimensions. Administrators may not be able to stop a user from committing infringement elsewhere, but they can prevent a user from getting into that quagmire, here. Thus, the present limited apology to Diannaa (which even to a fellow administrator, seems decidedly weak, and goes on to blame) seems most unsatisfactory, and lacking in understanding. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • My follow-up has included following discussion on his talk page, and a few off-wiki chats. I can do more if needed, but right now it seems that would do more harm than good. In general, the time to discuss this was back in December when the unblocking was done - not 8 months later - but I guess the timing was to make a political point. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • You don't think the timing has anything to do with the recent re-block? You're confident that you're just a victim of political machinations here? Ugh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Not confident, it just seems odd timing. The unblock was 8 months ago, new block was 22 days ago now, the discussion on my talk page had run its course, and then this new conversation was started out of the blue yesterday. Happy if it's just a coincidence though - but since the poster specifically says "I think this is something the community should know about given the current board elections" ... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Wait a minute. The second block, which more or less proved that your unblock was wrong, occurred on August 4. The discussion on your talk page started a week later on August 12 and continued through August 18. This thread was started a week later on August 25. Nothing was "out of the blue". You continue to stand by your actions, taking none of your colleagues' feedback on board. There are literally zero editors who have said they agree with your actions. You may yet become the subject of an arbcom case request asking for your administrator permissions to be reviewed. This is all definitely relevant to your candidacy for WMF trustee. I advise you to do or say something to fix this immediately; it will not go away on its own, it will only escalate unless you address it to the satisfaction of the community. Levivich 16:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

          Levivich basically has the timeline down, I'll add that I was on vacation when the second block happened and once I got home I tried getting to it as soon as I could. I should've been more clear about my concerns; one of the outgoing community elected board members faced COI allegations from the community that they helped get a user who had been targeting someone they were in a relationship with blocked (not that I necessarily believe those allegations but it was a community concern), and another one was sanctioned by Arbcom and later created a copyright-violating mirror to the disapproval of the community. So I think it should be more widely known going forward, because this is something the community cares quite a bit about. I don't really know Mike Peel outside of this, I haven't seen anything to suggest that he is a controversial editor outside of his admin actions. Discussion had ceased after a week and no one aside from Mike Peel seemed satisfied, which was one of the main reasons I brought this here. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 18:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• This is beyond absurd, admins have to do blocks as necessary and Diannaa's original block is per long standing practice. That one admin feels that it should instead be discussed at ANI or by ARBCOM indicates that Mike Peel needs to familiarize himself with our policies and practices first. And finally, an admin who unblocks unilaterally should take some ownership of the problem that follows rather than wash it away with a "had a conversation over tea and crumpets and didn't expect it to continue." —SpacemanSpiff 16:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• I have some wishes. I wish Mike would stop telling Diannaa how to act. What really did he think would be accomplished by this piece of (what I find to be patronizing) advice he wrote after his limited apology to her? I wish Mike would accept responsibility for failing to follow policy around unblocks in 2 of his 3 uses of the tool ever [46] [47]. I wish Mike would realize that failing to follow written policy - namely Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. - means that he does not know how to use the tool on enwiki. Especially because I have confidence Mike does understand the nuances of "should" judging by his explanation above of what he meant by saying someone should have gone to ANI/ARBCOM. Further, not consulting with the blocking admin isn't a social convention he violated - an example of a social convention violated would be his unblocking of a bloke he liked from a wikimeetup. I wish Mike would realize that this is coming up now because the reblock happened now. Finally I wish Mike the best of luck in his board candidacy - he would bring a lot of skills and experience to the position. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: Thanks, that's useful. I'm happy to stop Diannaa how to act (which was meant more to explain my thinking/viewpoint - but regardless). I'm happy to accept responsibility for my unblocks and any failings with policy that they have. I'm happy to commit to not unblocking users, if that would be helpful (perhaps to only unblock in the future *after* training/getting approval from an experienced unblocker). I'm also happy to acknowledge the perceived conflict of interest, and that I should have backed off this sooner (or ideally not started with it!). I'm happy to write off the timing as coincidence/due to the reblock. I'd also appreciate any other suggestions of things I can do now to make this right. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for this @Mike Peel. It feels like the kind of message that could allow this issue to resolve and which I hadn't seen to date. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

• Note I reverted this close by Ched- while this is here I would like to see if any further assistance with ClemRutter and the CCI could be offered. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 19:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Moneytrees - then you should have started a thread about ClemRutter. — Ched (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    Ched, "another bad admin action" - Really? Me and Diannaa have not communicated if we were satisfied (I am still thinking on it and doing other things right now), and I really think keeping it open longer might end up helping someone. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 20:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

    @Ched, reopening a discussion you think was closed too early isn't an admin action. MP's depth of misunderstanding of the seriousness of copyright issues, of what constitutes admin involvement, and of the value of indefinite blocks per the discussion on their talk is concernng, and while like Barkeep49 I think their final post yesterday is at least acknowledging that, it took forever to get us there. I don't think the closing was bad, but if the editors most affected by this issue think there's still productive discussion to be had, I think we should listen to them. @Moneytrees, what assistance w/ClemRutter and the CCI are you hoping someone might offer, and what kind of continuing discussion are you thinking might be helpful here? —valereee (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

ClemRutter has asked that the following statement be copied here from his talk page:

I know this is a discussion about User:Mike Peel but I see my name is mentioned here, and today was the first time that I received a courtesy notice. Thanks Diannaa. So I will make a few comments about the process. It may help if you watch my talk page and familiarise yourselves with WP:Close paraphrasing particularly WP:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrasing permitted? and WP:Close paraphrasing#Addressing. This is an essay, not a guideline and I would like to see it worked up to guideline. Most of the discussion is on my User talk:ClemRutter

As many of you know I have acted a trainer in the UK, and have written many booklets on the technical side of editing and explained verbal our copyright policies which were particularly important in places like the Wellcome Institute stopping academics c&p-ing their own articles which were published so subject to the publishers copyright. Yes, copyright is subtle- and one can always learn more.Tip: stalk(talk) . I am not an admin: I joined WP to concentrate on content rather than compete and get involved in disputes such as this- I did all of that in my previous life. I can do without the extra Admin tools and all the extra responsibilities. The one tool I could have done with- was the ability to see the text under discussion when it has been removed by a patrolling admin!

I agreed to act as a coordinator on the WP:WPSCHOOLS- I was invited by User:Kudpung who no longer contributes the EN:WP.There is a big question mark there.

Under discussion:Talk:Northern Ireland Curriculum Talk:Integrated education Talk:Thinking School

The dispute is about:

1. Basic Wikpedia stuff: pillars and WP:AGF. We work through cooperation not conflict- tone is everything. Try to fix first. Hyperbola in discussions does't help.
2. Basic editing protocols and using the Talk Page before you escalate an incident. Please read the talk pages of the articles under discussion. There are other protocols- but following the links and you quickly enter confrontational language.
3. WP:Close paraphrasing#When is close paraphrasing permitted? This appears to be highly subjective at the moment and I think we have concensus on Liberal Arts topics- Histories, Biographies, some aspects of geography but when we approach technical articles on educational policy, curricular theory there is a lot of work to do. Trite answers and slogans lead to bad articles. IMHO In an article that is being actively edited {{close paraphrase}} is a better template as it draws other editors into the discussion and leads to better articles- and is less time-consuming than an appearance on WP:ANI.
   There are some interesting thoughts on maintaining editor numbers on meta:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Candidates/CandidateQ&A particularly question 1. A lot of work to do. We must solve this by squaring the circle- luckily my memory has deteriorated so much that I can't bear a grudge. ClemRutter (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Copied here by Diannaa.— Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC) I have posted a response to Clem's message at his talk page, as it contains some incorrect information and misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy.— Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's rather sad that we have an indefblocked user (whether or not he's figured it out and can mend his ways is a matter for another day) and I'm much more concerned about the one doing the unblock. The replies above amounts to a pretty clear non-apology, and that's highly concerning to someone working in copyright. We do the best we can with (very) limited manpower and if people are just going to unblock because they feel bad and like someone then we won't get anywhere. Someone like that running for Trustee is, frankly, scary. Wizardman 20:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

• Soggy that you're angry, Wizardman, but that also isn't helpful here! What, I said soggy, that's my appalling'y. AN: I SED STUP FLAMMING! if u do den ur a fuken prep! fangz 2 raven 4 da help n stuf. u rok! n ur nut a prep. El_C 05:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand why some people seem to think that it's difficult not to violate copyright when editing the text of articles. OK, understanding the finer points of the law in various jurisdictions may take some effort, but the basic principle is so simple that nearly every schoolchild in the world knows it. You simply don't copy things, but write them in your own words. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• This was a very ill-considered and disruptive unblock by Mike Peel, who I advise considering whether to resign the tools if this is the manner he intends to use them in. I'm very thankful to Diannaa, MER-C, Moneytrees and the other admins active in the copyright area. We may need to authorize a somewhat less discriminate use of the block and deletion tools to get rid of the CCI backlog. Sandstein 20:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Bad unblock by Mike Peel, who has conspicuously not offered to help clear the 2000 edits added to the CCI backlog, or otherwise help reduce it a similar amount. It seems their problem is that an ideological procedure is more important than preventing actual harm caused (which is the only point of a block, not to be "fair"). Unfortunately, their understanding of procedure is also incorrect, as they think the blocking admin's feedback can be unilaterally bypassed (by (a) not consulting them and (b) going against what they recommend). Due diligence involves far much more research than Mike Peel did here. Also, Sorry that you're angry - but that also isn't helpful here. What the fuck is that? Certainly not an apology for mansplaining over the people who actually do the SPI backlog you have just added dozens of hours of labour to. I thought Sandstein's recommendation of resignation above was a little over the top before reading more and finding it to be perfectly appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Mike Peel, while I don't know all the ins and outs of blocking policy and conventions, an unblock request should at least be discussed with the blocking admin. There are some exceptions: blocking admin has resigned since placing the block, is inactive, on holiday or the block is clearly abusive. None of these exceptions apply here. If the blocking admin is unwilling to lift the block, it would be advisable to seek input from more admins or users who have interacted much (both positive and negative) with the blocked user. The conclusion could be to overrule the wishes of the blocking admin and grant the unblock, but going at it all alone is generally not a good idea. Even less so when there is a friendship between the blocked user and the unblocking admin. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• BTW, just voted for 18 out of 19 candidates — am I allowed to say that in this space? El_C 12:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Good news: I didn't get elected, so I'll continue to be more active around here! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

We cannot sweep copyright issues under the rug any longer

Nah, because peoples attention are on this right now, so I really need to say something. We had a giant wind of users helping out with CCI earlier this year, but the backlog has only increased, now there's ~164k articles at CCI. 202 cases, 164456+ articles as of the time of me writing this! That's ridiculous! There's about ~25 or so users I could call up and rally for a case, and we would still barely make a dent in the overall backlog. The backlog just gets bigger and bigger as the years go on, and the issues becomes more and more serious. We have a CCI that just turned 11 years old at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ardfern. As Mike says on his talk, it's so old the person it's on forgot it even existed! Earlier this year we accepted a CCI, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ruigeroeland, so huge it broke the CCI counter's page. It effects an entire massive topic area and the violations are innumerable; a massive community initiative will be needed to clean it up. I was writing one at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Ruigeroeland CCI cleanup, I said back on March 6 that I could "start a cleanup over the weekend" but I have a real life and I haven't been able to get to it. This year I have been really advancing in my career and college work, I simply can't spend as much time as I used to helping out with copyright violations, especially when incidents like this happen and I have to put the time and effort into pursing and resolving them. I don't want to put my foot in the door, I don't like doing it, but I simply don't have a choice. Because if I don't call this out, it'll be the next generation of editor's problem. And that's not going to work out.

Every "copyright admin" has a real life, we can't be here 24/7. Diannaa and MER-C have done so much work in the area for years and years, and it is completely unacceptable. Diannaa has been like Atlas holding up the clouds for so long, and it is not healthy. Dianna's done 87,609 reviews at Copypatrol, and several thousand other reviews off of various requests. She's been the go to person for copyright issues for so long, it's basically a policy to ask Diannaa about your copyright issues. There's so much shit going on, how is it even fair to expect Diannaa to keep up so extensively with a user who is not getting it? But don't worry, DanCherek can take Diannaa's place as the person who carries the massive weight of vetting current edits for copyright issues- he's done 1,275 reviews in the last 30 days. That's not fucking fair for him at all! We can't let this shit continue like that! If MER-C stops editing, the workflow at CCI will face serious issues, since he's the only one with access to the script that removes not copyright-able edits from the the contributor surveys- if he just stopped editing one day, what would we do? Other editors in the area- Hut 8.5, Sphilbrick, and Wizardman, just for example, have been around for over a decade, and despite the work they've done, it just doesn't end. If Any of the mentioned users stopped editing, there would be serious issues for the entire site. That sort of system does not fucking work!

But it's "another bad admin action" if I object to a close of this discussion because I don't think everything has been resolved. Please! I spent easily 400+ hours cleaning up Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld, one of the biggest and most controversial CCIs ever, and spent months worth of going to sleep late in order to make just a bit of a dent in it. Near the end of the CCI, when it mostly came down to me, I was spending 10 or so hours a day at the CCI, cleaning up as much as I could. I don't have the time for this, no one does! As Hut says above, cleaning out this stuff is incredibly tedious and takes thought and time- I am just a man, I cannot kill the backlog myself. I have so much regret for CCIs like Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20180325, I've put so much effort into helping out elsewhere that it got neglected, and SlimVirgin, who so kindly helped me with it, died before I could even really start on a serious effort to clean it up! That's real guilt, fuck! There's one CCI I can't even name because it involves oversight-able content, also involves someone who isn't around anymore, which I promised to complete- and I haven't been able to because there's just too much shit! This isn't healthy for me, and I do 1/20th of the work Diannaa does! So no, I find it just a little hard to just immediately accept an apology to someone who works so hard, and I find it even harder to accept when my work is insulted. The WMF doesn't help out (that needs to change, we are not equipped as volunteers to handle this and labor for them over it), and not enough of the user base does.

But Ched is not Mike Peel, so I forgive you Mike, I won't speak for Diannaa but I am happy that you are willing to help clean things up. As for helping out, if you could maybe advise ClemRutter further on what needs to be done to be unblocked and help identify issues, I would appreciate it very much. If you have further questions about helping out at the CCI, please ask I'd be happy to answer.

And now it's time to start cleaning all of this up. And by this I don't just mean the ClemRutter CCI, I mean all of CCI and all of our copyright issues. I want everyone reading this to help out at CCI or copypatrol right now, in some capacity, it does not matter. And I mean everyone, I don't care if you think you don't know anything about copyright, or you're not even involved in this dispute at all and are just some AN browser, read my guide at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide or ask me a question if you're confused. Every bit of help counts, because it is impossible to do this just as one or a few. The whole culture of sweeping copyright issues under the rug and letting them stagnate needs to end now, or it will hurt Wikipedia to an extreme extent. This can't be pushed away any longer, and I'm going to keep pushing this in everyone's face. It's not fucking working.

Valereee, I wanted to keep this open to say that (sorry for the delay) the ideal for this going forward is for someone to be able to help ClemRutter figure out how to reword their contributions and not be so reliant on their sources. We would need engagement and better understanding from them in that regard, and that may not happen. I think Ritchie333 has interacted with ClemRutter before any thoughts one what can be done here, Ritchie? I truly hope ClemRutter can be unblocked and understand copyright better, but I am stumped on what do and at this point I hope writing one of my (popular?) long form things like this can get some more eyes on the situation and help get a better resolution. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I must say, as an admin who usually just writes and contributes to articles, that the instructions for how to help out are daunting to say the least.--Berig (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Berig, for what it’s worth, I thought so too until I had actually given it a go a couple of times and then it became much clearer. You could also try starting at Copypatrol (linked above I believe) which is effectively a RC filter for copyright issues with an in built iThenticate system to attempt to locate where content was copied from. firefly ( t · c ) 06:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Honest to god, for anyone looking at pitching in, CCI is not all that technically difficult, just tedious. My usual process is approximately this:

1. Open the diff and compare to the current wording in the article - is it still present?
2. If it's already gone, mark the diff as such and move on; if it remains, look to see if there's a source cited
3. If the source is accessible, visually compare the wording or use ctrl+F to find keywords (proper nouns are great for this as they won't change, and unusual words are telltale)
4. If you can't access the source but it looks suspicious based on unusual wording, either reword (if possible) or presumptively remove and note that in your edit summary
5. If there's no source but it looks sketchy anyway, run it through Earwig's Tool or try googling short phrases from the diff to see if anything comes up that predates the diff
6. If you find CV or extremely close paraphrasing at any point, remove it and note it as such in your edit summary
7. If you did all that and you're pretty confident it's not CV or really close paraphrasing, the diff is probably clear
8. Mark the diff in the CCI with your results - Y for copyvio found and removed, N for no issues.

On any given CCI, shorter diffs will be towards the end of a given page/later pages; those tend to be easier, so people newer to the process may want to start there. Even if all you do is mark stuff off that isn't CV, you will be slimming down the lists that the rest of us are dealing with, so that is still really helpful. If you encounter any issues or have questions, the CCI channel on Discord will be only delighted to help, or you can probably ask an experienced CCIer at their talk page - I for one am happy to answer questions on-wiki or on Discord. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am tempted to have a go at this, but honestly, ATM, I feel that fake referencing is just as big a threat to WP. Most people here probably don't have a clue about the amount of OR that is hidden in WP articles by using references that either say the oppposite of what they are supposed to say, or don't mention the topic at all.--Berig (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Moneytrees and Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for the info! I'll have to have a look into helping with this soon. I feel I owe it to check at least as many diffs as the extra you now have to check from Clem's edits - but would look at someone else's edits to avoid perceived COI. Also, as I offered before, if there's anything that can be automated, please let me know and I can code up a bot script to help. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help, Mike Peel. The third page of the ClemRutter CCI had Mike Peel 125 articles and 456 diffs at the point of its creation. There's also an unknown number of articles/diffs on page 1 and page 2 that were post-unblock, since Clem was unblocked on December 29 and the CCI was not created until January 12. Clem performed around 103 edits to articlespace in that period.— Diannaa (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Moneytrees, Clem is a real-life friend of mine and one of the few Wikipedians I would trust to look after my children. I haven't had time to digest this thread yet, and I'm rather upset to see Clem blocked at a time when he's got bigger problems to think about right now. From an outsider's point of view, I'm curious to why Diannaa seems to be the only admin looking at this - are we that short of admins specialising in copyvios these days? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, are we that short of admins specialising in copyvios these days? Yes, unfortunately. Only four admins regularly patrol copypatrol; out of those four, MER-C is only semi active and is usually preoccupied fighting spam and clerking copyright problems, Sphilbrick does not block, and Moneytrees (me) is not always around; these last few months I've been focusing on real life a lot and I was on vacation at the time the block occurred. That leaves responsibility of it to Diannaa... Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 04:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

So because someone is a friend of yours, they must be treated differently than any other copyvio case? That stinks of corruption. The inability of the community to catch these problems when they occur before they have escalated to large CCI cases makes it all the more necessary to be firm when the cases to break - with blocks and presumptive deletions needed to protect the encyclopedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Mildly, I think one point Moneytrees is making is there isn't "another admin" to "place the blocks and the warnings" because hardly anyone actually works on copyright issues. Also, while I wouldn't use strong language like "corruption" I do agree with Nigel Ish that there's nothing wrong with the same uninvolved admin issuing a warning to an editor and later blocking that same editor if they ignore the warning. If you feel this is harassment you'd need some more specific evidence than that. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

More I think about it the more this needs adding: as with others in this thread Ritchie333 you really do need to substantiate or withdraw your harassment allegation. If you're serious about the allegation then no doubt you have evidence to share: if you're not serious you should correct the record. Either option is better than just leaving this here as an unsupported accusation. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, From an actual outsider's point of view, you don't seem like an outsider. Your aspersion against Diannaa is troubling and I wish you'd retract it. El_C 10:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That is was a reprehensible attack, Ritchie333, being so intimately involved with the blocked user as you claim, you can't speak as an "outsider". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC) (I've struck though, in part, thank you, Ritchie333, for the retraction (although you should have used strike) -- I foresaw an Arbcom case, if this was not remedied, it was such a hurtful and serious thing for you to have done. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC))

Looks like Diannaa is gonna need more baby chipmunksupport before the day is done if this bizarre friend of nonsense is to somehow continue. El_C 11:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of attitude that makes it impossible to deal with serial copyright issues. People show up to wring their hands over their wikifriends getting warned or blocked for repeatedly violating copyright, but do absolutely nothing to help remove the CV or mentor the person in question. People see how copyright admins get treated and steer clear of the area - who'd want to get involved if it brings this kind of response down on their heads? I too would like to see Ritchie retract this ridiculous aspersion against Dianaa. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Lest anyone else think this was "hounding" (??), here are the links to the relevant CopyPatrol reports that Diannaa handled: 1 2 3 4 5. Here's how to interpret them: These five bot reports, where a bot flagged ClemRutter's edit as a potential copyright violation, make up 0.000057 percent of the reports that Diannaa has handled over the past five years. All of her actions (warnings/blocks) happened after she reviewed one of these reports; none of them resulted from what Ritchie333 is implying. Probably because she's busy going through 87,000 other reports to clean up copyright violations. Sorry, but that accusation is baseless and hurtful. I echo Moneytrees' invitation for anyone to help out with copyright cleanup, even if it's just a little bit — it may seem daunting but it definitely gets easier with experience. DanCherek (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know Clem well but judging from the passion of his friends, I'm guessing he's a great person and one who is committed to what we're trying to do here. It makes me sad that someone who is thought of so highly and who is committed to Wikipedia would end up indefinitely blocked, especially at what seems like a difficult time in their life based on what Ritchie has said. But I also wonder where his friends were in all this. Were they helping him behind the scenes after his December unblock or perhaps after the new set of warnings began in July? I don't know whether or not this happened and I hope it did, but if not it strikes me a shortcoming I see in our social fabric at times. To me one of the great virtues of having Wikifriends are having people I trust to nudge me before I wander too far off the path and who can count on me to do the same for them. But this doesn't seem to be how all friend groups operate. I see people who so evidently have so much to contribute but who wear out the community's patience for them and end up indeffed or desyopped and wonder if some earlier efforts from friends couldn't have stopped that sad outcome. As to the matter at hand, I hope Clem is receiving help now from the people who care about him. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, you know how much I respect you, and I'd urge you to look at this exchange and in particular this response. That is not "an acceptable paraphrase", as CR is calling it. He is trying to argue there is no alternative to using certain terms (which isn't even true, I can think of alternatives to most of the ones he calls out) and that because of that, the entire thing is okay. He's ignoring the fact the paragraph structure is identical, down to asking rhetorical questions. Clearly this was cut-pasted and a few words changed. It's very troubling, especially because he is defending it as an acceptable paraphrase, and then later in the exchange he's talking as if everything's been worked out when it clearly hadn't. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I agree with the editors in this thread who characterize your comment as "stinking of corruption", "troubling aspersions" and a "reprehensible attack". It represents one of the worst problems of Wikipedia - veteran editors reflexively defending their friends even if they're clearly in the wrong. That's how we get the unblockables. As admins, we owe it to the community to do what's best for the encyclopedia, rather than for any one editor. Please draw the appropriate consequences from this feedback. Sandstein 20:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

+1 to DanCherek, Barkeep49, valereee and Sandstein (or should that be +4?). — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, with this edit, you removed the part of your comment at issue in which you wrote "the actions of Diannaa look like hounding - another admin could have placed the block and the warnings", and replaced it with other text. As an administrator, you must know that WP:REDACT directs: "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided". To me, this looks like you seek to avoid taking responsibility for your poor conduct in this thread. Please amend your edit to re-insert the removed text, and apologize to Diannaa. Sandstein 08:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sandstein, I apologise to any offence caused, as none was ever intended. I do not have any more time to deal with this today, sorry. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• With so few editors who really understand the CCI process, other admins may not tend to take this seriously. I think if the admins and editors who are involved in this process are telling us they need help, we need to listen.

In general I feel if there aren't enough volunteers to do a job, it's either not worth doing, or it's worth paying to have done. This problem is actually one WMF does care about, and there's plenty of money. —valereee (talk) 11:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a very good point - some of the very large CCIs are too big for the small portion of the volunteer community that is active in the area to deal with in a reasonable time, or is reliant on checking off-line sources that are not necessarily easily available. Some sort of full time support with access to big public libraries and the like would be of benefit for these large cases.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The W?F cannot help directly because that would expose them to legal liability. The W?F can invest in software that isn't shit so that our workflows are faster, our bots are better and copyvio users don't create sockpuppets, and reduce or stop growth rates in certain parts of the world that have a general disrespect for copyright laws.

On our end, it is long-established policy that major contributions of copyright violators can be removed indiscriminately (or deleted through Wikipedia:Copyright problems if it's the entire article). We don't use this policy enough. Sockpuppets? Presumptive deletion. Promotion, original research, BLP issues or other content problems? Presumptive deletion. Difficult to verify offline sources? Presumptive deletion. Remove first, rewrites can wait. Five warnings? No, one is enough, then an indefinite block. No communication? Block.

We are also losing the battle against spammers, for the exact same reason. MER-C 15:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

No books are fabulous. Not everything is online, often the best stuff isn't. Secretlondon (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

They can be great sources but are difficult to access and verify any infringement. That's the problem. It takes too much time. MER-C 17:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Also against POV pushers.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

We desperately need more editors from many regions of the world. The solution is to better help new editors understand how importantly we take copyright issues, not to reduce or stop growth rates in certain parts of the world. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope, we can't even do that, again thanks to the W?F. MER-C 19:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I've had a go and its a horribly convoluted process going through someone's entire edit history. There has to be a better way than this - picking through ancient diffs. Secretlondon (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The diffs wouldn't be that old if we were serious about copyright infringement. MER-C 17:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

One obvious point - why are you going through things on commons? That's up to commons, which has its own processes. Secretlondon (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

because commons cares about copyright more than here. The images need to be cleaned up too. The admins have been generally appreciative of the cci work and we take it through commons deletion processes. It's just like crosswiki spam and abuse. You follow the processes. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie, my respect for you is greatly diminished. To be a copyright editor is to walk through brambles, as this thread shows. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

In regards to reducing the CCI backlog, you guys might want to look into doing a backlog drive. This has worked well for some WikiProjects I've been involved with. You pick a month, you announce/market the backlog drive to folks (via mass message sending, noticeboard posts, watchlist message, etc.), then folks work on reducing the backlog for a month. You make sure there is a leaderboard so that people can see who is being most productive (the competition aspect is motivating). At the end of the drive, you give out barnstars depending on what numerical targets people hit. Sounds dumb, but it creates focus and motivation, which really boosts productivity. I've seen stubborn backlogs completely cleared via a backlog drive. Could organize it via a WikiProject such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, you've been asked by at least two editors to retract your slur against Diannaa, but I don't see any acknowledgement that you've even seen those requests. In case it's not obvious to you, a statement that "Clem is a real-life friend of mine and one of the few Wikipedians I would trust to look after my children" could reasonably be followed by something like "so I can't make any comment here", or perhaps "so I'll try to help him to understand the problems with his edits", but not by any kind of innuendo against the admin who's been trying to make sure that Rutter understands and follows one of our most important policies. Please strike that unacceptable remark. In case others are not aware: Diannaa is not the only admin who works on copyright (my thanks to the others, you know who you are), but she carries a massive load with exemplary fairness and reasonableness; she deserves our thanks, not a stab in the back.

On the wider issue: this is the second time in a few weeks that a legacy admin (thanks to them for long service!) has come out of the woodwork to unblock without consultation with the blocking admin. Would it be worth a reminder in the next admin newsletter that this is not current practice? And perhaps also that it is not acceptable to unblock any user that you know personally? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers, Good idea. Please, something in the newsletter (no idea how that is done); it's not a panacea, but it would be something worthwhile to come out of this. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have long thought that Diannaa and Moneytrees are two of the three biggest saints on this website, and I have no idea how they do it. (And I extend this to anyone else who's a regular at CCI but who I may not have bumped into as much.) CCI is the worst embarrassment of the project, but it is not because of the people who work there, but the people who don't. This essay by Moneytrees is actually quite tame IMO when you actually consider the burden that has been placed on them and how much of an amazing job they have been doing, with no complaints, kind words and a smile at least 99% of the time.

If you're looking for a way forwards, Moneytrees, I'm not sure whether you've seen the recent AFC Backlog Drive but in June AFC was our third-worst embarrassment of the project and the backlog was completely wiped, even though the backlog was (being brutally honest) planned ad hoc and the programming behind it was not present until late in the drive. Now, I think that's way, way more than you could get from a CCI Backlog, but it proves that backlogs can succeed beyond your highest expectations, and it's worth having a go even if you don't have a perfect plan right from the start. (And upon edit conflicting I notice Novem Linguae has brazenly beaten me to the suggestion of a backlog.) — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I've tried CCI in the past, and I've got one point that I get hung up on that I would really like some advice on. The CCI is Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20190125, and primarily involves an editor that copy and pasted material from unreliable sources in what is one of my prime areas of interest (Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War). Most articles also have copy-and-paste of PD sources in there. It doesn't feel right butchering the articles to leave only the PD material with gaps, but the sources used are so bad that it also doesn't feel write "using" them to rewrite the content. For the most part, I don't have access to replacement sources. I would be doing more there, but I just can't get past how to handle this point without leaving either half-articles or using horrible sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 04:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It really sucks, but sometimes, if you're unwilling or unable to rewrite, you just have to gut an article of the CV and leave the wreckage. And I mean that goes for lots of areas, not just CCI - if you encountered these terrible sources in a MilHist article outside of a CCI, would you feel guilty stripping the content out, knowing that it was likely to have errors or inaccuracies? If better sources exist but are not accessible to you, maybe someone at RSX or MilHist could help you get them. If that's not plausible, you could leave talk page notes, or invisible comments in the parts you removed so later editors can see what you did and why. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The core of the problem is people adding material to articles without sources. Unsourced material is worse than none at all. It's worse than vandalism, because vandalism can be quickly removed. If the source is provided, then the facts can be verified. If it's not, we cannot be sure. (It also opens us up to citogenesis.) I am often relieved to find that material has been copypasted from a PD site. (This happened to me yesterday.) Otherwise, even when I know what it says to be true, I am forced to rewrite because I cannot be certain it is not a copvio. We need admins to take unsourced additions as seriously as vandalism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced statements are Wikipedia's #1 problem. Levivich 06:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that more than half of CV diffs that I encounter actually cite the source. That's not to say that unsourced edits are not problematic, but I would strongly disagree that unsourced edits are the core of the copyright violation problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Premeditated Chaos, In the case of the Edelmand CCI I mentioned below, the copyvios cited an offline source, that I only spotted because I have the same book, so the plagiarism sat in Wikipedia for years and years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, but they did cite a source. In my experience a lot of people doing serial CV are acting in good faith and literally have no idea that copy-pasting (or, yes, laboriously retyping from a book) content into Wikipedia is wrong. They cite their sources because they think that makes the direct copying okay. On the one hand it does make it easier to check for violations because you have something to check against, but you're right that when it's a book source it is harder because books are often less accessible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

When I remove a large block of copyvio from a draft, I'll usually replace it with {{expand section}}. That might be a good solution in some cases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to look at this thread before now, as I was out working (and hence off-wiki) yesterday from about midday to 2am. Anyway, I have reworded the above comment to better express what I meant, and would suggest that people consider that I might just not have expressed myself as well as I could because I was online for about ten minutes yesterday. The main point stands - as I consider Clem a friend, I do not feel I can offer any meaningful views on sanctions for them as I don't have a neutral view on the subject.

Of the more general issue, copyvios are one of the most misunderstood parts of the project. Most of the time, from my experience at working at AfC, is that close paraphrasing and plagiarism is added by new or inexperienced users, which is why I ended up writing User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to copyvios after people got annoyed that I refused to restore articles or drafts that I'd deleted as WP:G12. Admins working in copyvios are as rare as hen's teeth and we need more Diannaas and Moneytrees working on the project. Personally, I've chipped away at the odd CCI case such as Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Edelmand but I just find it tedious - I can cope with reviewing ten articles, but five hundred is just too much. If we got more people helping out, then we might be able to make a dent in the backlog. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I believe what you meant to do was strike what you wrote rather than delete it after others have replied to it and commented on it. 28bytes (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

No doubt. This is too strange. An inappropriate removal rather than a strikethrough (what?) coupled with a the main point stands follow up (again, what?). Ritchie333, I dislike a pile on and forced apologies almost in equal measures, but your initial accusation and your latest follow up suck, well, almost in equal measures. You fire-and-forget some accusatory nonsense, hurtful nonsense, without basis, and now this? What is happening? El_C 08:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with El_C. Ritchie333 you've been an admin for six years, you must be aware of the need to substantiate allegations of harassment and to follow WP:TPG. Not the end of the world but you dropped the ball on both of these in this thread. Gratuitous and unintentionally patronising advice: do better next time. And with that, enough said. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I got more too say. Sandstein, I apologise to any offence caused, as none was ever intended — I'm sure that makes any offense feel better. Sheesh. El_C 10:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• It's hard but can brook no excuse. Let's not forget to stress why copyright issues strike at the heart of what this project is; we, Wikipedia, warrant our encyclopedia is freely licensed to copy (apart from NFCC) -- that's a trust we each take on, and cannot shirk. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  Every editor has a responsibility to uphold the integrity of this project with every edit they submit. We preach to stop POV and RS and other issues, we have noticeboards for edit warring and neutrality issues. The copyright cleanup project is dead, the Copyright Problems is a "noticeboard" but is more of a dumping ground and a non intuitive design. CCI isn't a noticeboard. WP:MCQ is the closest we have to a true noticeboard on copyright, and this covers filespace only. There are hundreds of images needing a copyright confirmation alone, with most of them unsourced! There isn't enough people or time anywhere.

  We don't have time to slow down, to unblock people without proof of change, to open more CCIs on 30k+ edits. We're spread too thin. I've spent almost from the day I joined working on Copyright, with now more time spent on Ardfern than anything. I know that case better than I know GNG at this point! Fuck, this is so bad that I was forced to open a case on an entire wikiproject. I can't even begin to work on it, there's older cases with more blatant violations. The lack of care of both copyright and how serious this issue permeates every sphere and every editor. Even with new people, none of us "vets" can take a break. There's so much more to be done. This is barely the start.

  I'm cynical this AN will change anything; this work is hard and very few actually stick around and grind the case out to the end. After people do a few, will they continue to stay and continually help out? We relied on MoonRiddenGirl in the early days, now it's Diannaa we rely on. This isn't sustainable. We need admins, but every time someone runs for copyright it's harrowing and every other admin is too hesitant. We can't afford to be more careful, work slower, we can't be afraid to remove content wholesale. Moreso, we are expected to be accurate. We cannot make mistakes, it's drilled into our heads from the start. Moneytrees is right. This cannot be swept under the rug any longer. We are beholden to uphold the integrity of the encyclopedia as editors, and for too long we've let that slip with CCI. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• Not a subject I'd typically comment on, having far less experience with it than many others here, but a thought on the subject of everything that comes before a CCI and the framing of CCI:
  The thing which IMO should most contribute to a decision to indef/ban a user for copyright reasons isn't having made the mistakes (even over a long period of time, even prolifically), but refusing to put in the effort to learn where they went wrong and then clean it up themselves. I don't know why we would allow someone to continue being an editor in good standing if they create a massive backlog for other people to go through and don't spend as much of their volunteer time as possible cleaning it up.
  And a big reason, as I see it, why someone might not want to do this is if they feel humiliated by the process or otherwise feel like it's something being done to them rather than with them. The way it's set up, as a formal "investigation" that often involves posts about the person on noticeboards, seems like a law enforcement/suspect relationship whereby someone is expected to sit back and watch the gears of justice (even if they're invited to help, by that time they may feel sufficiently stigmatized to have difficulty doing so). Of course, by the time a CCI is filed, presumably people have received several warnings with clear examples and instructions and have either failed to clean up or continued to add violations, but it seems worth reiterating that the top priority should be retaining the copyright violators to get them to clean up their own stuff, thus avoiding the giant backlog to begin with (to whatever extent possible). Maybe there's a special mentorship sort of program that would be useful to precede any formal investigation and keep the user involved without attaching their name to an investigation. That would require volunteer time, too, but perhaps less? For those active in the area, is this too optimistic? Are we only really talking about backlogs caused by the worst offenders who contributed maliciously and/or have no interest in being an editor in good standing? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  The CCI backlog runs the full gamut between good faith editors to those banned by the W?F. Serial copyright violators with a complete lack of communication occur far too often, where the only remedy is the banhammer. MER-C 17:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is my experience as well. Established editors especially will always pull rank, unless their name is Rodw. We are not taken seriously. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

  I was going to suggest very much the same approach as @Rhododendrites, at least as far as Good Faith editors with a serious blind spot on copyright violations go, like Clem. So finding a way to guide and encourage them to come back and continue editing, and to recognise and address the problems they hadn’t even realised they”d created seems a win-win, if we can manage it. Sadly, like most people, I have little interest in many topics where copyvios occur, but presumably the offending AGF editor does? I would far rather check and mark their revised work than do that work for them. So finding a way to support and rehabilitate certain types of cv offenders so that they feel they can return and address the work they’ve created seems a worthwhile goal - assuming we can find a way to achieve it without shaming them into disappearing forever. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, by the way, it's worse than this. I also maintain the contribution surveyor, the tool that generates the CCI listings (we had a contribution surveyor before then, but it was authored and maintained by someone who got banned by the W?F). And then there's the whole other existential fight, the one against UPE spamming. MER-C 16:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @MER-C: Not to turn this ANI thread into "people with no experience in CCI make suggestions about CCI", but... have you tried taking the output of your tool and having a bot spam the talk pages of the affected articles with a notice along the lines of "Due to [link to CCI page] the following edits may have introduced copyright violations into this article: [diffs from CCI listing]. For instructions on how to investigate and repair the problem, [link to instructions]"? I just looked at a couple of the open cases in my areas of editing interest and found articles I've edited or have on my watchlist, but would never have known to look for possible old copyvio in them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd support this, but be prepared for people to not like the explosion in their watchlists. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
      • This does have the advantage of possibly reaching people who may have access to offline sources who have the articles watched. It will reduce the problem of the first thing people know about an article having possible problematic content is when the article is deleted. More communications with Wikiprojects would be good as well where they are active - again if we can engage with editors who have knowledge of the subject and have access to sources, then there is more of a chance of saving the articles.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, some editors could find explosions on their watchlists if it spammed all talk pages for a given CCI at once, and the potential violations were all in one or two areas of interest. Would be great if such a bot could work through multiple CCIs but each in small chunks. NebY (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

    I support this proposal; it allows us to leverage the capacity of editors who already know the articles at issue and are best placed to fix existing problems. Sandstein 08:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

  I also think this is a great idea, assuming it's practicable to automatically template the relevant articles. I see no problem if people's watchlists are hit with such notifications. If, as has been highlighted, we have a desperate backlog of unresolved and unaddressed copyvios in articles, we need to mark all these articles for editor attention. Simples. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This is one of the symptoms of having insufficient administrators. This problem continues to get worse. The solution isn't finding more people to process the CCI investigations. The solution has to involve preventing them from happening in the first place. The project is failing. It's never going to fail with a bang, but with a whimper. Each day forward, it whimpers a bit more. Like lobsters in the slowing boiling pot, nobody really notices. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Bull. The project, Wikipedia, is not failing. Main problems I pick up on is that "Wikimedia" editors are spread too thin among too many projects and would be nice if many of them focused on Wikipedia again (always remember, Wikimedia was set up to aid and uphold Wikipedia, if there are signs of thinning-herd failure look at project distribution), some very good editors have been blocked or banned (a "day of forgiveness" would be nice for long-time editors and controversial blocks, Jimbo can do that with a wave of his arm onto a keyboard), and not enough emphasis on getting more professional writers and researchers to come on board (via media interviews, talk show appearances, talks to professional groups at their conventions etc.). Just some quick ideas. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The long term trend of administrator decline (now well over 10 years) has seen many attempts at reversal. Nothing has worked. A year ago this day, we had 517 active admins. Now we have 469, a 9.3% drop in the active admin corps. This is unsustainable. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Which of course must be reversed. Maybe a "Class of September '21" with nomination of 21 new admins (many long term editors who've expressed interest, and re-nom many who failed before at admin admittance). Jimbo will save us (of course) if he uses some of those magic-wand powers that he has - maybe we can come up with a list of ten suggestions that he can act on as long as he's still active and has some good level-10 powers. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This idea will go about as well as introducing a handful of sodium into a fish tank. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose this. This mindset, the "day of mercy" as you call it, is why we are in this situation. This is yet more sweeping under the rug of our problems, especially incivility and copyright violations. Blocks such as Clemrutter's don't come out of nowhere. Neither do community bans, which I think we should consider for Clemrutter. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

That really seems unnecessary. This was a productive and committed editor who has certainly had a serious blindspot regarding close paraphrasing and copyright, and that is unacceptable. But if we can get that addressed -and if they'd also be willing to help resolve it, I see no reason to community ban them in the way you suggest. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Actually we can sweep copyright problems under the rug - that's what people like Google/Youtube and Facebook do by insisting that they will only look at such problems if you provide strong evidence that you are the copyright holder. The question is more whether we should sweep them under the rug. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  This is incorrect. My Facebook account was disabled after somebody sent a false copyright claim from three different junk e-mail addresses claiming I infringed on their property. Since I was posting my own photographs (currently available on Commons and uploaded by me) they obviously could not provide a strong evidence the photographs is theirs. This was in 2018, and I was not able to get the account unbanned.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Pardon my personal commentary here, but that's just scummy that Facebook couldn't do anything for you. What a joke that our copyright system has become. WaltCip-(talk) 14:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I sent several complaints (counternotices) according to their policies, the complaints were all answered (presumably by robots). All the answers were identical, that they do not see any reasons to think that I own rights to the material I posted (which, again, were my own photographs), and that I should check with the complainant. Given that the complainant also sent me threats by e-mail (so that I had to report them to the police) and perfectly knew that I own the copyright, I obviously did not follow up with them. May be they meant I should go to the court, but in my country this is not possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to facilitate speedy deletion of unprocessed CCI entries

The above discussion shows that the amount of material at WP:CCI exceeds our ability, as a volunteer community, to process it in a timely manner. I therefore propose adding something like the following as a new speedy deletion criterium:

G15. Unprocessed possible copyright violations

This applies to pages that meet the following criteria:

• they have been listed as possible copyright violations at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations for at least a year, and
• they have not been marked as processed by an editor to indicate that any copyright violations have been removed.

If feasible, it is preferable to remedy the possible copyright violation by removing the content that was added in possible violation of copyright, but administrators are not required to attempt to do so. Pages deleted according to this provision will be restored to draft space on the request of any editor who credibly represents to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion that they will promptly check for and remove any copyright violations, after which the pages may be restored to their original location.

Any suggestions or comments? If people like this, we could make a formal RfC proposal out of it. Sandstein 11:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This should probably be crossreferenced to WT:CSD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Many things listed at CCI are not wholesale violations, they are articles where at some point large pieces of copyrighted text were added. I do not think deleting them is such a good idea, as opposed to deletion of articles with the foundational copyvio and hardly anything else.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, for the latter case we already have WP:G12. But if nobody is willing to do the CCI work and untangle the copyvio from the good content then in my view we are required to delete the whole article, unless we want to violate our foundational commitment to free content and be complicit in ongoing copyright violations. Sandstein 12:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but I would say if we go for this solution it must be a revert to the pre-copyvio case (possibly followed by a revision-deletion), not the deletion. Imagine I die tomorrow and someone adds copyvio to Krasnoborsky District, I am not around to remove it and nobody else cares - should the article be deleted then?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps it's better to restrict wholesale deletion to instances where the suspected edits include the page creation. And to use reversion+revdel if not. I note that WP:CCI does say If insufficient volunteers are available to manage clean-up, presumptive wholesale removal is allowed. but apparently that's not enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

We already have this process - I'd push the deletions through Wikipedia:Copyright problems. These listings are not onerous to process - check history of each article in a batch to see if the copyvio editor is the main contributor and the page cannot be reverted (if it can reasonably be reverted, it can be done so on the spot), then Twinkle batch delete. It takes about five minutes per 20 articles. I deleted over 500 of Billy Hathorn's articles via this method last year. MER-C 14:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think we need something like this, but that the specifics should originate from discussion among those who work most in CCI/copyright and therefore know what will most help them. (Not a comment on Sandstein as I've no idea how much copyright experience they have.) — Bilorv (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Don't think this would be particularly helpful. Most CCI entries aren't pages which were created by the subject but pages which they edited, so if necessary content added by that person can be removed. Presumptively deleting every page edited by a CCI subject would be extremely damaging as there are about 164,000 of them and the vast majority are clean. Policy does already allow for the presumptive removal of content added by someone with a history of copyright problems. Hut 8.5 12:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Presumptive deletion would make only ~5% of the backlog go away faster. MER-C 17:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. If it can be resolved by indiscriminate reversion, then do that and revdel the intermediate diffs. Otherwise, G12 applies. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: This is what WP:CP is for. What we require is more admins to delete articles and revisions, and not-admins to write replacements. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose - seems to be overkill. WP:CP functions for presumptive deletion if needed. I know from my experience that the CCI I've worked on there's a lot of ones that are actually copied from PD sources or just aren't copyvios or are only an easily-removable or rewritable single sentence or two of violation . This seems like too blunt a weapon to handle the situation. Hog Farm _Talk 06:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose That's what wp:CP is for, like Vami said. With this proposed speedy deletion a lot of good articles could get deleted because of easily fixed problems. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 00:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: sometimes an editor being investigated is the primary author of an article on which we absolutely must have an article. For example Grenfell Tower Inquiry was primarily written by ClemRutter. And Anwar al-Awlaki was written primarily by Epeefleche (that one article took me around 2 weeks to clean, working on it an hour or two each day). — Diannaa (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to disable the talk page of IP 188.162.254.147

So i been watching a page User talk:188.162.254.147 and found out that the ip, which has 2 users on it are edit warring with eathother on the same ip, a request to block this talk page would be helpful. MoonlightVector 19:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 19:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced, repeatedly reverted edits by Ayansharma214sar

Ayansharma214sar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I thought only one of their edits was like this but it seems there could be two or more (there's at least 2 big, unsourced edits with a lot of reverts)
Unsourced big edit 1
Unsourced big edit 2
Unsourced big edit 3
- Speedcuber1 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I left user a warning welcome about unsourced edits. Sometimes the only pillar a new user understands is WP:BEBOLD. Hopefully they will amend their ways. They've 47 edits since August 31. They have only received one warning. Their last edit was to at the TEAHOUSE about being reverted, and they received answers from GoingBatty and OP that they need to source their edits. They've not edited since then. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

They have since made 2 more edits, the diffs are here and here. Speedcuber1 (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment: @Deepfriedokra: their most recent edit as of me writing this, (the second diff above), looks to be vandalism to me, or at the very least disruptive. - Speedcuber1 (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit: After looking at the article, I don't think it's vandalism, but it looks to be an unnecessary edit. Speedcuber1 (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Partial blocked, article space, 1 week. Invitation to discuss here. Any admin can unblock at their discretion. A ping would be nice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I'm neutral on this block, with some reasons for and against. My reason to support the block is that in a way, it is clearly warranted. My reason to oppose (in a way) this block, is that maybe we should give them one final chance, with a relevant warning on their talk page, to not make any more disruptive/unsourced edits, and declare in the warning that if they continue, the block will return. Another possibility would be to reduce the block to maybe 2 or 3 days, again with a notice on their talk page. (That's if admins do this, as I haven't seen any half week blocks).

Keep in mind these reasons are mainly suggestions, and I'm not siding with either support or oppose for this block.

I think this is a good time for an uninvolved editor that is new to the situation to make a comment. - Speedcuber1 (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I've done this before when an editor doesn't seem to have found their talk page. Sometimes it's the only way to stop disruptive behavior. Doug Weller talk 08:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. A block for article space to stop the disruption, which can be removed once the disruption is addressed, and an invitation to address the matter. One week's duration 'cause it might take an editor that long to notice the block. If they outwait the block and the disruption resumes, a more persuasive approach might become necessary. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Challenging RfC Closure on "What is the Indian Medical Association's position on Ayurveda?"

This is a request to review the close at What is the Indian Medical Association's position on Ayurveda?. The issue the closer was to decide was, "What is the IMA saying about Ayurveda?" with focus around whether they consider only some ayurvedic practitioners as quacks based on certain qualifying criteria, or all ayurvedic practitioners as quacks. This has been a contentious topic with previous talk page discussions [48][49][50][51][52][53] and more that led to the opening of the RfC. The last vote on the RfC was one week before the closure, and the phrasing of the statement per the cited source continues to be contested even after the closure. The discussion with the closing editor can be found here. In the closure they applied guideline WP:FRINGE over wiki policy WP:NOR because they think the former was mentioned far more, even though that does not appear to be correct. Their close was based on some editors saying that the IMA's position is informed not only by the way that Ayurveda is practiced in India but also by the Indian legal environment without considering whether such a reasoning was backed by secondary WP:RS. Even if their assessment of predominance is assumed correct, core non-negotiable WP:NOR should have still been considered in assessment of all the arguments to correctly reflect IMA's stance with regards to qualifying their position. Furthermore, WP:FRINGE is not intended to decide on issues of what an association is saying, but only to establish if its position is not scientifically mainstream and may therefore be (re)moved from the lede or even the article. But the close does not contain any such conclusion either. -Wikihc (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that, contrary to the huge yellow edit notice, Wikihc did not notify me of this. All of the above has been said already in the referenced talk page and they are attempting to re-litigate that discussion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Pardon for having an emergency in real life which precluded me from dropping an immediate notice on your talk page. Also, I find it strange that you accuse me for posting on AN per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as you yourself recommended, since the issue was unresolved after talk with you (closer). -Wikihc (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Also noting that users who considered that the article is misrepresenting the IMA source, discussed it with the closer early on during the RfC dispute[54][55]. On this, the closer labelled them as ayurveda proponents, whom the closer did not want to hear from, under an all caps title. Closer thus seems to have strong feeling about the topic and those who have a certain view in the dispute. -Wikihc (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, blatant context omission, where would AN be without thee? I have strong feelings about a group of anything proponents who randomly decide my talk page is the proper outlet for their anger against Wikipedia. [56], [57], [58], [59], etc. I am allowed to put a stop to disruptive edits on my talk. Not wanting people to continue disruption does not prevent me from summarizing an RfC, even a related RfC, accurately. I believe you have not demonstrated otherwise. Your arguments here and on the article talk are merely that I did not decide the RfC the way you wanted and must therefore be wrong. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Already provided diffs in context above where you labeled people discussing with you the source from the very RfC you closed, to disregard their arguments. You also made unsubstantiated accusations against me earlier for discussing your close with you, and are now personalizing the dispute because I posted on AN. As an uninvolved editor... it shouldn’t matter to you whether the close is changed or overturned... If you find yourself taking anything personally... indicate that you’re too involved to be an impartial closer and should have left it to someone else.Wikihc (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• I see that discussion as reaching consensus for "some", and I think its practical effect should be to confirm the current wording of Ayurveda: the community agrees that not all Ayurveda practitioners are properly called "quacks", but those who claim to practice medicine certainly are. I do think the wording of Eggishorn's close is suboptimal and as a matter of best practice he should consider rephrasing it in a way that conveys fewer of his own feelings and judgments, and more of the community's.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Boodlesthecat

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

---

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed. (discussion link)

Administrator imposing the sanction

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Notified at 18:23, 14 September 2021‎ (UTC)

Statement by Boodlesthecat

This sanction is for edits I have made at the article . My edits have largely addressed factual issues and have attempted to address serious POV and other issues in the article, eg, prominent use or a label ("TERF") widely considered to be slur by those it's generally directed at (a fact conformed in Wikipedia itself in it's article); a seriously problematic wording in the lead of the article which places gender-critical feminists (so-called "TERFS") as the primary instigators of violent protests, when it is pretty much universally agreed that the primary instigators were far-right, Proud Boys-type bigots, attempts by editors to downplay case being made against a suspect arrested in the case, which challenges the prominent claims of the incident being a "hoax" in the article, among other issues. I have begun a number of discussions on the talk page of the article so editors can discuss various concerns, and although these discussions sometimes get tense (since it involves editors who seem invested in a particular POV), they have been fruitful in making useful edits to the article. The talk topics I've initiated, in addition to participation throughout, have been "TERF is considered by some to be derogatory," "This article conflates gender critical feminists with the far right," "Lead now incorrectly blames feminists and right wingers/fascists, rather than just right wingers/fascists for anti-trans protests," "NY Post as originating source for information on Wi Spa case," "Why keep deleting that LAPD has described suspect as male?," "Being charged and being arrested," all of which have been useful. There are claims of my edit-warring, which I dispute. I've documented some instances of editors trying to bait me into reverting, and noted it when making changes (pointing out, eg, a single word correction pointed out by an editor could have been made by that editor, who instead would delete a chunk of copy, forcing (perhaps baiting) me to make the trivial correction and insert the whole bit back in, and this be accused of "reverting." You'll have to forgive me, but being elderly and disabled, I don't have the stamina to present a fancy defense with diffs and all that. I simply was attempting to help bring some balance to an article with apparent POV issues, as well as being in need (still) of a seriously copy edit. In a nutshell--claims of edit warring I believe are not accurate; and at a minimum, a number of editors engaged in identical modes of editing as I did, so even though I didn't consider any of it sanction worthy, it's clear that sanctions directed solely at me is arbitrary at best. As for tone of discussion, a reading of the talk page would similarly find multiple editors occasionally getting heated. None of it offended me, and at the risk of sounding cliche, I do honestly apologize if anyone's feeling were truly hurt. Amongst many things in my long life (and although I generally never share personal info of any sort on WP, I've been an active supporter for LBGT+ rights probably since long before most editors involved here were born (when we had "gay liberation" as the term covering it all). So it's disturbing to feel that I might be getting tossed into a box of somehow falling on the other side of my actual beliefs, but I feel abandoning fact-based writing, in the long run, will do more harm than good. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodlesthecat (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra For the second time now, I have to take serious offense, as I did before, with your current statement that I am "unable to address this topic objectively. I believe she is emotionally engaged by something that causes her moral outrage." At a minimum, this is highly presumptuous, and well beyond even any charges leveled against me regarding my assuming anything but good intent on the part of other editors. As before, when you pontificated about me being "too emotionally involved" and having "uncontrollable visceral" responses (!) that you parsed from my typing on a page, and I replied that I found your your "attribution to some supposed emotional state on my part offensive." But perhaps worse, in this instance you misgendered me (which keeps happening, despite my never having stated a gender here, or as far as I know, ever, on WP). That you also presume that I am female, and perhaps a "Cis" female, makes these constant offensive attacks of your all the more insulting, as they waver into classic misogynist slurs about hysterical women (and I do indeed have "moral outrage" about that).

I happily take pride, hopefully not arrogantly, in thinking my actual edits are thoughtful, well supported, and contribute to the quality of this project. Deepfriedokra, I really must implore you to stop dismissing whatever efforts I've made with these offensive missives against me, which offensively reduce me to some perceived emotional state/disability, and are dangerously flirting with misogyny.

Deepfriedokra And there you go again! "if they are violating ther topic ban it means they 1) sees it as invalid and 2) are, once again, too engaged emotionally to stop." How about (as I acknowledged on GorillaWarfare's page), I didn't realize it applied to Talk pages, since I didn't seem to be blocked from it. Seriously, stop it. These insults are actually bordering on getting me actually emotionally engaged. Which hopefully isn't why you keep doing it. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GorillaWarfare

The reasoning for the sanction can be seen in my comments at Special:Permalink/1044307661#Result concerning Boodlesthecat. I implemented the sanction after there was general agreement among the three admins who commented on the behavioral concerns that a topic ban was appropriate. Boodles, it would be useful if you could explain the basis for your appeal rather than largely restating what you already said at the AE request. There are many reasons people appeal AE actions, ranging from the belief that the admin didn't properly evaluate consensus among the other admins, the scope of the topic ban is too broad, etc. etc. and it would be easier for me to respond if I understood where you were coming from in this particular case.

Although Johnuniq did offer some thoughts on the particular content disputes in question here, that is not normally the purview of AE requests (which are meant to handle conduct rather than content disputes), and so I don't intend to respond or give my thoughts on the various content questions that come up. I did give some advice on how to handle content disputes in my comments at the original AE discussion.

Also courtesy pinging the other admins who weighed in: @Johnuniq, Deepfriedokra, and HighInBC:, who I don't believe have been notified yet. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Also note that Boodlesthecat is continuing to edit at Talk:Wi Spa controversy, despite the topic ban: [60]. I am not sure if this is a misunderstanding of the ban, and have asked here: User talk:Boodlesthecat#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting here so people don't have to click through that Boodles has clarified that they didn't realize the tban applied to talk pages. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads' reading of WP:INVOLVED seems exceptionally broad to me. I suspect if editing one article in a topic area made an admin WP:INVOLVED with any other editing in the entire topic area covered by DS, we would have few "uninvolved" admins left. There are certainly times where I choose not to participate (or not to participate as an uninvolved admin) in AE cases pertaining to disputes to which I am not a party, and related to articles that I have not edited, and that is out of an abundance of caution related to WP:INVOLVED. Crossroads pointed to one in his comment, the Springee AE report, where I wrote in full: Note: I edit within similar topic areas (American right-wing/far-right individuals/groups/etc.) but I put my comment down here as I am not involved with respect to Springee, and I don't believe I have substantially edited any articles that they actively edit. I went back and forth on where to put my comment, and in the end put it here just to pick a spot. Either way, I intend to offer my views but not levy any enforcement actions of my own. I don't edit the articles about Andy Ngo or Tucker Carlson, but I do edit a lot of articles about extremely right-wing individuals, and it felt close enough that it was better to be cautious. But Incel and Wi Spa controversy do not strike me as closely related at all, though they are both within the G&S topic area; nor do a handful of BLPs about transgender individuals. I think my interpretation of this is quite in line with other admins who I see at AE. To give one example, Johnuniq commented here as an uninvolved admin, and they have apparently fairly substantially edited female genital mutilation, a topic that also falls within the topic area. This is not to call them out for doing so—I maintain that it is quite reasonable to edit some topics in a given DS topic area while remaining uninvolved with respect to others, and it is a judgment call as to when the topic areas are too close.

As for the observation on my activity at AE, I engage with AE when there is a discussion there where I feel I can provide useful input. I stay pretty informed on American politics and gender/sexuality topics as a result of both my editing and my off-wiki interests, so I usually can understand disputes in those areas without a bunch of research (though I will note that the later-withdrawn "Wi Spa" AE report above the Boodles one was the first I heard about the controversy at Wi Spa). I largely stay out of AE discussions on other topics (say, India–Pakistan or The Troubles, to name some recent ones), where I would have to do substantial amounts of research to feel informed enough to understand a dispute well. I was willing to do that kind of research when I was on the Arbitration Committee because there were only fifteen (ish) of us and it was a part of the "job"; at AE I feel better leaving such discussions to someone who has the background knowledge or time and interest in doing the research. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have had no prior disputes (or even interactions) with Boodlesthecat. I'm not WP:INVOLVED with the filer or any of the other people who commented at the request. I've made no substantive edits to Wi Spa controversy or its talk page. I named my edits to BLPs about transgender subjects not to try to downplay my activity in that topic area—to the contrary, that's probably the most significant contribution I've made to anything near this topic area. Apparently I've edited Brandon Teena, as you point out, and it's close enough topically ("people react negatively to discovering a person's genitals aren't what they expected") that if I was a substantial contributor to it I'd probably apply my "abundance of caution" logic I mention above. But one talk page edit in 2019 to advise on word choice when describing a trans person's genitals (which boiled down to "none of this is in the source, so what is this even about", and an issue that I don't believe has been in dispute at the Wi Spa article), and four mainspace edits (one uncontroversial edit removing OR (2018) about Teena's mom's marriage, one removing a URL from a reference that was a copyvio (2018), and two Huggle edits (2020)) are a far cry from "substantial contributor". I was, and remain, satisfied that I'm not WP:INVOLVED here. I believe my interpretation of the policy is in line with that of other admins. I'm happy to hear outside opinions on this, since it's good to calibrate on this as a community, but I am surprised at your suggestion that this was somehow a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding: can you clarify what you mean when you say "That other admins agreed with her shows that involved comments and sanctions are not needed."? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand what you meant now. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: If there is consensus here that I was WP:INVOLVED, I'm happy to voluntarily rescind the tban/strike my comments at AE and leave the dispute for other admins to review. However I would rather not do what you are suggesting and rescind the topic ban before such a decision is achieved—that will put in me, and presumably the other admins who similarly interpret INVOLVED, in an awkward position of not actually knowing which reading of INVOLVED is accepted by the community. If Crossroads' interpretation is the one that enjoys community support, I would need to make some significant changes to how I evaluate whether I am uninvolved with a discussion (including, apparently, searching my 100,000+ edit history to make sure I didn't make one edit 2½ years ago to a talk page on a somewhat related topic) that would most likely end my participation at AE or with DS in general, so I would like to know for sure. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

@Boodlesthecat:, you should cut and paste this (with some formatting fixes) to WP:AE. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC) struck at 19:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong. As Crossroads notes below, AN is an appropriate choice of venue for this appeal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I strongly urge a decline of this request. Cullen238's summary below of Boodlesthecat's editing history is accurate and revealing. I would add to it that Boodlesthecat made no edits at all from February 2018 until they started editing at the Wi Spa pages, and that all of their edits since then have been related to this one topic, starting with a BLP violation that had to be rev-deleted. Among the assumptions of bad faith and wildly cast aspersions, Boodlesthecat accused me of WP:CPUSHing. I'd view this as plain projection were it not for their POV-pushing being so uncivil. I feel the record below and at AE substantiate my view, but I am happy to go more into detail if anyone feels it would be helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Crossroads

Firefangledfeathers, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications, a person may choose to appeal at AE or AN. I understand why Boodlesthecat chose AN.

More analysis to follow soon. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll note up front that Boodlesthecat's behavior indeed had issues, though a few things were not as bad as was being presented. I think, however, that a warning would have sufficed for now since this appears to be the first instance of issues in the topic area.

Here's the issue: I don't see how we can reconcile GorillaWarfare's extensive commenting in the "uninvolved administrators" section of the AE report, and her placing of a specific sanction, said to be "imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator", with what it actually says at WP:INVOLVED (emphasis added): involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings. Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved... So, has her previous editing in the gender topic area been purely administrative or "minor or obvious", or is she involved in the topic area itself?

It clearly is the latter. She openly says on her userpage: My editing interests include political extremism (particularly online) and groups in the manosphere, and that Incel is one of her WP:GAs. Her gender-related editing includes transgender topics too (although it's all the same topic area per DS anyway); she links on her userpage to her personal website where we see this. Here she is involved at Feminist views on transgender topics. Here she asserts that There's really nothing about genitalia that's "female" or "male"... (this is clear POV on something that is near-central to the Wi Spa controversy). Here she argues to take seriously the idea that someone can really ask others to use "tree" as a preferred pronoun in reference to themselves. Another major aspect of the Wi Spa controversy is whether or not there are ties between certain radical feminists ("TERFs") and the far-right, which would fall under the American Politics DS topic area, another area GorillaWarfare edits extensively per her website.

To be clear, I probably would agree with the vast majority of her edits and still respect her thoughtful input even if I didn't agree. However, WP:INVOLVED is clear that it is still the best practice, in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved, to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards. It would be much better, in appearance at minimum, for her to leave matters such as this for administrators who edit in other topic areas, and for her to comment on cases in topic areas she is not involved in.

I note that in writing that I decided to look over the last 10 pages of AE archives (pp. 284-293), and the only times she has commented as an allegedly "uninvolved administrator" were on cases about American politics and gender DS. In fact, at that first one, after PackMecEng stated that she had total shock at seeing GW list themselves as uninvolved in pretty much anything AP related, GorillaWarfare states in her reply, If anyone here thinks my comments should be moved up, I have no objections; as I already very clearly stated I edit in these topic areas and have no intention of trying to levy sanctions here. Yet at later discussions (the one I last linked and this one) she presents herself as uninvolved, and this time did levy sanctions, despite clearly editing in the gender topic area and this incident involving both gender and AP DS. I don't think she should offer this only when called out, but instead as a baseline recognize how poorly this looks, and recognize herself as WP:INVOLVED in these topic areas. This is regardless of what is ultimately decided for Boodlesthecat. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC) tweaked Crossroads ^-talk- 03:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

In reply to GorillaWarfare: I emphasize that the WP:INVOLVED policy is clear. You speak of "if editing one article in a topic area made an admin WP:INVOLVED with any other editing", but I never made that claim. I spoke of editing throughout a topic area. Your editing throughout the gender and AP topic areas is to a massively greater degree than Johnuniq editing the FGM article. Together they appear to make up the bulk of your editing. I also showed that your editing in transgender topics goes beyond "a handful of BLPs about transgender individuals" and I argued it showed "strong feelings" about the topic as stated at WP:INVOLVED. I emphasize that this situation involved both the gender and AP DS.

Nobody is going to ask you to comment on AE reports you don't want to, but that doesn't excuse commenting on involved ones. Deepfriedokra and HighinBC, who commented there, I have never seen on gender articles, and Johnuniq only very rarely and not on ones with the relevance that you have or anywhere near that degree. There is no risk of bias or appearance thereof if such reports are left to others, so why not just do that? If an admin made most of their edits on India-Pakistan, would it be acceptable for them to comment as uninvolved in India-Pakistan AE reports and levy topic bans from the topic area? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, two wrongs don't make a right. I stated that I thought a warning for Boodlesthecat would have sufficed for now, but if uninvolved admins decide otherwise, that's fine. I was still shocked to see GorillaWarfare present herself as "uninvolved" and place the topic ban. I'm not 'playing a card' like this is some game. It is still very important for us to uphold the INVOLVED policy regardless. Otherwise, the process gradually gets corrupted. That other admins agreed with her shows that involved comments and sanctions are not needed. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Clarifying that last sentence as requested: even from her perspective it isn't like she 'had' to comment under "uninvolved" and to levy the sanction or else justice wouldn't be done. Clearly-uninvolved admins are perfectly capable of coming to the same conclusions if they're justified. So I'd rather we keep things clearly aboveboard.

Even regardless of transgender topics, on which I won't repeat myself, she is still indisputably deeply involved in Am. Pol. as it pertains to the right wing. The nature of right-wing/far-right involvement/alliances is central to the Wi Spa controversy and to the original AE report. It was even filed under both gender and AP DS. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

GW continues to misrepresent my view, stating, including, apparently, searching my 100,000+ edit history to make sure I didn't make one edit 2½ years ago to a talk page on a somewhat related topic. There is a massive chasm of difference between that and editing gender and American politics articles all the time. She seems to be "warning" if she is considered "involved" in this case, then it means all these extreme and impractical rules follow. They don't at all. The difference is obvious. INVOLVED will always have a gray area, but this isn't it. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra

• The reason for the sanction was not based on content. It was based on conduct. Maybe I'm wrong, but Boodles seems to be saying that her being right on the content (by her accounting) justifies her conduct. Please see the links in the AE thread. In summary, there was edit warring (even after a block), personal attacks, and casting of aspersions. Boodles seems unable to address this topic objectively. I believe she they is emotionally engaged by something that causes her moral outrage. I think it would be best that she they contribute to the roughly 6*10^6 articles that do not address this topic area. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Well, if they are violating ther topic ban it means they 1) sees it as invalid and 2) are, once again, too engaged emotionally to stop. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• To me, WP:INVOLVED is quite clear. If I have been in a prior conflict with an editor, I am involved. If we have been in a shouting match, I am involved. If we got along like cats and dogs before hand, I am involved. Editing in a subject area that another user is being sanctioned in does not make me involved. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Noting Cullen and Isabelle Belato's comments below. I did err at the AE thread. I wrote that they had edited constructively in the past and that a TBAN should suffice to prevent further disruption. I did not pay enough attention to the DS area related problems Cullen and Isabelle Belato address below. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• @Levivich: That was very determinative. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Isabelle Belato

I'd just like to note that Boodlesthecat has previously said they were misgendered when Gwennie-nyan accidentaly used female pronouns to refer to them. I suggest we try using singular they/them when referring to Boodles. Isabelle ^🔔 19:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@92.5.2.97: I believe the term TERF is used to refer to the group of people that helped spread the video and organize the protests, not directly to an individual. It's also cited by multiple sources. Isabelle ^🔔 19:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The issue here is related to Boodlethecat's conduct, and I do not believe GorillaWarfare would qualify as WP:INVOLVED here to be able to apply the sanction. My main issue with Boodles, as I've mentioned in the AE openned by Gweenie, is their battleground attitude and their constant casting of aspersions towards anyone that might not agree with them (especially Gweenie-nyan, as the original creator of the article and who also opened the AE):

• [61] ... and as an aside, to share my feeling that this report was filed by an article creator with WP:OWN issues simply as a form of harassment and to maintain control of an article which other editors have found to have POV issues.
• [62] apparently done imo as a form of harassment and intimidation
• [63] LOL, "bad faith and aspersions," isn't that exactly what filing an underhanded harassing complaint without any warning is?

Boodles does not address that in their appeal and instead try to deflect their own behavior by saying other users were also misbehaving (which, even if true, falls into WP:NOTTHEM). Isabelle ^🔔 01:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Gwennie-nyan

As the editor who initially-filed the AE request, I specifically want to note beforehand that I did not want to file the request. (Sanctions/bans/blocks, of course, are not to be punitive or silence other voices. They are there solely to protect the project functionality and Pillars.) I felt the continual battleground behavior at Wi Spa controversy/Talk:Wi Spa controversy and eventually user talk pages, were contrary to the development of constructive discussion. When I realized that the user had, during the last significant period of activity in 2008, been involved in a different D/s area and was blocked for battleground behavior, I felt that the previous problem had resurfaced and it made more sense to report it.

I know there are some discussions relating to conduct or content. Had this merely been a content issue, I would not have filed the AE report unless it was egregious. If it wouldn't have been able to be resolved in article talk, I would've escalated to WP:DRN instead. The extremely combative style of discussion and editing they engaged in (which DFO referred to as "visceral" and "emotional" both here and AE) made it very hard to have discussions and attempt to build consensus through good faith examination of sources, policy, and such. I would like to note that even though he critiques the AE closure here at the appeal, Crossroads and I actually agreed (along with another editor) about my proposal regarding the lead wording.

My only wish is that discussion at the Wi Spa page can resume constructively and that Boodles can, assuming the tban remains in place, find other places on the wiki to constructively edit. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, I believe you may have erred by attempting to close this appeal. As one of the admins who weighed in on the AE, I believe it is improper for you to evaluate this AE appeal. You already INVOLVED yourself there. So I feel it best if an admin who didn't weigh-in at the AE request do the proper close. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Boodlesthecat

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 92.5.2.97

I haven't read the enforcement discussion or have any awareness of the article in question, but wasn't the issue of using terf handled by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive292#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. So it can be used but only with attribution. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened here, my comment was meant for the uninvolved sections.92.5.2.97 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully now fixed. 92.5.2.97 (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

The diffs on the ARE page are a clear indicator of the battleground attitude that got this user topic-banned. If I had come across these, I might not have bothered with the arbitration paperwork and just blocked for POV pushing, personal attacks, and a complete lack of AGF. As for GW's supposedly being involved, Crossroads, I'm a bit disappointed that you chose to play that card, which is kind of irrelevant since she wasn't the only admin who found the editor's attitude seriously problematic. And if it is irrelevant to whatever is "ultimately decided for Boodlesthecat", why bring it up here? Drmies (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• User:Mikehawk10: I strongly disagree with your suggestion that GW rescind the perfectly reasonable topic ban she imposed as an uninvolved administrator. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mikehawk10

My reading of WP:INVOLVED is in a bit less expansive than the statement made by Crossroads and much more expansive than that of Deepfriedokra. If, for example, an editor were to regularly and substantially edit Organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China, Persecution of Falun Gong, Islamophobia in China, State Religious Affairs Bureau Order No. 5, China Tribunal, Uyghur genocide, and Xinjiang internment camps, it seems likely to me that that person is probably too deeply integrated into in the relevant topic area to act as an uninvolved administrator in disputes that originate at Antireligious campaigns in China—even if such an admin were to never have edited the lattermost page themselves. But, I have concerns about how we would determine what a "topic area" is for the purpose of determining such an involvement—as the definition of the "topic area" encompasses more and more things, such as the entirety of gender or American politics, it wouldn't make any sense for me to say that substantial edits made to Mitt Romney would preclude an individual from acting as an administrator in, say, 2001 New Jersey State Senate election. Ymblanter, an experienced admin, has cited ArbCom's prior decisions as a reason to cease admin activities in areas that he edits, broadly construed, and my guess is that ArbCom's reading of WP:INVOLVED has something to do with this (though a chilling effect may also contribute).

Drmies states that GorillaWarfare's alleged involvement is kind of irrelevant since she wasn't the only admin who drew the same conclusions she did, though the community has considered that argument to be unpersuasive in the contexts of, for example, a high-profile move review. The closing summary, written by S_Marshall. stated that WP:INVOLVED is policy: A "widely-expected standard that all editors should normally follow". It is not to be dismissed as mere pettifogging bureaucracy. This goes to the heart of how Wikipedians make decisions.. I think that the same principles would apply here; if GorillaWarfare were determined by the community to be involved, I'd believe that the ban should be procedurally overturned.

However, I'm on the fence on whether she's involved, in part due to the issues of how to properly define the topic area. To me, GorillaWarfare's edits to the article are not substantial enough to make her an involved party in their own right. And, I don't think there's any evidence that's been presented for GorillaWarfare having previously quarreled with the topic-banned editor, so there doesn't appear to be any argument for that sort of involvement. This would leave only arguments for involvement that are based upon the underlying content dispute. Any content-based argument that she's involved would have to show that she's too involved in "gender", writ large, or more narrowly that she's too involved with editing on trans-exclusionary radical feminists or something else that's particular to the content dispute that led to the eventual conduct dispute. I don't think it's prudent to endorse that she's too involved with "gender"; I don't think that there's evidence that she'd be necessarily involved in a dispute that pertains to LGBT themes in Hindu mythology, for example. There's some evidence above for the second sort of argument, and Crossroads may have a point there, though I have to think more deeply about the scope of involvement before I'm able to give a full answer.

Beyond the above, I don't see the reason to engage in substantive analysis beyond the procedural measures at this time; 'I believe that the procedurally clearest way forward would be for GorillaWarfare to voluntarily rescind her topic ban in order to let clearly uninvolved administrators evaluate the case de novo. There are substantial issues that are brought up above about the appealing user's conduct, though I'm not sure if addressing them in-depth would be prudent without thinking a bit more about whether or not the admin issuing the sanction was indeed involved. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Upon diving in deeper, I don’t think that we should consider GorillaWarfare as involved in this particular case. I’m not seeing evidence of her involvement in something substantially similar enough to this dispute that I’d be willing to say that it is unreasonable for her to have been the one to issue the ban. In principle, I do think that an admin can be involved by editing fervently in a topic area and being engaged in content disputes that are similar even if they don’t modify the article which is related to a dispute that comes up at AE, but I don’t think there is enough there in this particular case.

Regarding her point that she’s have to end all involvement at AE, no I don’t think she would, but I do think that there’s a sort of way to become WP:INVOLVED in a dispute through actions on other pages that are not directly involved in the dispute.

Regarding S_Marshall: I don’t think picking a bunch of public fights with admins offers someone a tactical advantage on, say, WP:ANI. Picking a fight with an admin might be useable if there is one particular admin you want to isolate from judging you, in a tactical sense, but also there are simply too many admins for this to have any positive strategic benefit to a malicious actor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Per El_C's comments below and Deepfriedokra's comments on my talk page, my response to S_Marshall above was formed with an incomplete analysis. In the cases of ArbCom (and apparently AE), there are such a limited number of individuals involved that there might be tactical use to do this sort of stuff. Gorillawarfare clearly wasn't involved in a public fight with OP, so I think it's moot for this appeal, but I still do have concerns about the hypothetical admin that's blocking people that they have conflicted with in the past—even if they are the only person with the knowledge to quickly address a situation—as this would procedurally enable admins to engage in score-settling through the use of administrative tools by applying harsher-than-typical sanctions in borderline cases. Removing past conflicts from WP:INVOLVED could result in a site block could result in enabling a number of malicious actions by admins to be procedurally OK—instead of a partial block they could give a site block, a 24-hour block could turn into a 5-day block, a logged warning could turn into a topic ban, a topic ban-worthy offense could be turned into an indef block—all without a recourse other than the ordinary appeal process (which requires more than a narrow consensus to succeed). Again, in this case, it's all moot, and I'd decline the appeal on substantial grounds for now—but I do think that we have to be wary of any embrace of the procedural notion that WP:INVOLVED should be generally ignored in cases where there are substantial reasons to sanction an editor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Celestina007

I believe I’m as objective as they come as I don’t think I’ve ever crossed path with Boodlesthecat. I honestly do not think this appeal be granted /ban lifted. I was trying to pedantically read all entries but I just stopped when I saw they had violated their topic-ban, I’m unbothered, nor do I really care to consider nor put into perspective if violating the T-BAN was a mistake or not or if it was done in ignorance, if you are violating a TBAN it shows (a) an attitude not compatible with a collaborative project (b) blatant intransigence to the point you cant tell when you are transgressing anymore. Until such a time that they exhibit traits that show that they acknowledge their shortcomings and show true remorse I don’t believe this ban should be lifted. Coupled with Cullen328's careful analysis below, this becomes a no-brainer. Celestina007 (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

S Marshall

Having been pinged and quoted here, the only thing I want to say is that in matters of blocking, WP:INVOLVED is best construed narrowly. If we construed it broadly, there would be a tactical benefit in having public clashes with sysops, and I don't think we want that at all.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Softlavender

Appealing a sanction that was instituted only three hours previously? LOL no. No matter how one tries to construe GW's 'involvement' or no, the admins discussing prior to the institution of the sanction agreed that Boodles' conduct was disruptive, in a DS area, and that a TBan was needed. (It could have resulted in a block, so in that sense Boodles got off easy.)

I vote Decline per Cullen's careful analysis of Boodles' editing patterns, below. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

• Procedural Update Note: I have amended each case where the formatting, ported in from AE, has said "uninvolved administrators". While I've no objection to @Boodlesthecat: wanting to make use of AE-breakdown, WP:AC/P specifically notes that it's "uninvolved administrators" on AE, and "uninvolved editors" on AN. This does mean that the "statement by uninvolved editor X" is going to inherently overlap with the "Result of the appeal" section given the use of the AE format, but is a fundamental difference between the two forums. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Boodlesthecat

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved editors. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• This matter was discussed by a group of uninvolved administrators. It was there than multiple administrators felt a topic ban was needed. The suggestion that GW is "involved" because they have edited a topic that falls under the topic ban is an unreasonably broad interpretation of involved. Prior involvement in an administrative capacity also does not make them involved. As already mentioned at AE their behavior in this topic area falls well below the higher standard imposed on areas under discretionary sanctions. My opinion is that this appeal should be declined. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Gwennie-nyan: regarding your concern about me being involved. Prior involvement in a purely administrative capacity does not make me involved, I already mentioned that above. I did not impose the sanction so it is not my sanction being reviewed here. In addition I don't believe I have been involved in the underlying content dispute. You can read up on WP:INVOLVED for more details. Also I am not attempting to close this, I am giving my opinion that it ultimately should be closed as declined, I will leave it to another admin to close. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• I want too put to rest this idea that this ban could be removed based solely on the idea that GW was involved. First off the prevailing consensus seems to be that they do not meet the definition of involved as used on Wikipedia. Secondly if somehow to the community came to this (in my opinion) erroneous conclusion I myself would be glad to put my name on this topic ban, so the ban would still stand. If you want to overturn it then you will have to address the ban itself instead of going after to the person who made it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Boodlesthecat is an editor who made 4121 edits thirteen years ago in 2008, and their conduct that year led to a one year ban from editing. In the intervening 12 years, they made less than 40 edits. Then, they returned on September 3, 2021, and in about 11 days have made 104 edits and have engaged in tendentious editing including aggressive, hostile accusations against their fellow editors. That pattern of behavior resulted in a topic ban after a discussion in which several administrators expressed concern about their conduct. One basis for possibly overturning the topic ban is that GorillaWarfare is "involved" because she edits in the very broad topic area. I think that this interpretation is far too stringent. GW's edit to the article under dispute consisted of trivial, useful copyediting. There is no evidence of previous bickering with Boodlesthecat. Administrators are also, pretty much by definition, highly experienced content contributors, and extensive experience in a broad topic area is useful for an administrator to be able to recognize and rectify problematic behavior in that very broad area with tools like topic bans, especially when a community discussion has taken place. I recommend that this appeal be declined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• AE structure? Check. Minus the word limit? Double check. Paragraphs so large they have their own gravitational pull? Check, check, check. El_C 01:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• @AlmostFrancis: ah, "uninvolved editors" — I missed that. What a weird appeal. I've seen a lot of em, but indeed, this one takes the cake. Anyway, the reason AE works better for more nuanced cases is, in part, because a smaller quorum of uninvolved admins are more likely to agree on something than a massive number of editors, involved and uninvolved alike. El_C 02:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Decline. I don't see anything wrong with GW's AE close. But I see many things wrong with several claims of WP:INVOLVED here (and not just in regards to her) that are simply not so. El_C 05:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ToBeFree: Using the AE appeal template at AN [unconventionally]. Anyway, I guess the hope was for some sort of a technical repeal on procedural grounds (ala real world judiciary), rather than anything resembling a WP:GAB approach. Which seems kind of pointless, tbh. But hindsight is insight for foresight for next time, I suppose. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 06:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Mikehawk10: actually, a disputant isolating a particular admin in such a way can definitely become tactically advantageous (if pulled of skillfully) for material involving a lot of background and/or expertise. If there's one admin (around) who can very quickly parse something that would otherwise be quite challenging to other admins, then, yes, derailment would not be an unlikely outcome. In fact, to a degree, this is a perennial problem. El_C 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Assuming you are not just trolling, why would you open a discussion here that is structured like it is at Arbitration Enforcment? As should been obvious, the only people who will comment under results are admins and people that are indifferent to admin perogitives (me). The point of oppeing a discussion here is to get admin and non-admin consensus, so either choose a different form or better yet just let it go. On the merrits, if you edited for a couple months non-contentiously and made a request I would give you good odds people would be receptive. Otherwise "gender" is like "taxes" far to broad a subject to be involved in unless their are specific documented consensus complaints. AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• This appeal is a mess for two reasons: Using the AE appeal template at AN, and a discussion focus on a strawman "involvement" claim rather than the ban and the appeal themselves. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• The evidence that GorillaWarfare is INVOLVED with respect to the topic area is tenuous at best. There's no evidence she has made significant contributions to this topic or someting closely related to it, or that she has a history of prior disputes with Boodlesthecat. Editing in the wider topic of gender doesn't count, and neither does having an opinion about gender. We wouldn't stop someone from acting as an uninvolved admin on all politics articles just because they've edited some completely different politics articles and have some political opinions. On the actual merits of the appeal it does look like there was some degree of battleground editing from Boodlesthecat and I don't think a sanction is out of line, although many of their suggestions weren't unreasonable. Hut 8.5 12:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• the only people who will comment under results are admins and people that are indifferent to admin perogitives (me) Lol! So true. WP:INVOLVED definitely talks about "topics" and "topic area", and not "articles" or "pages", but it doesn't matter. Even if GW was involved (and I don't know how narrow or broad "topic" should be construed in this case, but generally, it should be narrowly construed), there were other admins who were not involved who came to the same exact conclusion. Also, obviously an admin who participated in an AE decision shouldn't also !vote in the appeal (because of course people don't get to "judge" the appeal of their own decisions!), though they can still comment on it as GW has done here. Still, I don't see any grounds for appeal other than the involved issue, and since the alleged involvement of one admin isn't determinative, I'd decline the appeal as well. If this appeal is declined, any future appeal should be a 500 word statement that gives some grounds other than involved. Levivich 12:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC) (comment from another non-admin who is indifferent to admin prerogatives)
• Just what Levivich said, especially the final 27 pre-signature words. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• I probably take a broader view of WP:INVOLVED than most people and I think that GW shouldn't have imposed the tban herself. But WP:SNOW and WP:NOTBURO tell us that we shouldn't bother overturning the tban for procedural reasons when it was the correct decision. Mlb96 (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate file addition

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

---

Could someone please take whatever appropriate action is deemed necessary by this. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Help, my account is bugged and I need admin attention to know why it's bugged and to see if it can be resolved

I have come to this noticeboard as kind of a last resort. I feel that admins will be able to help me in this situation whereas non-admins won't.
Since yesterday, my account is bugged. On both my smartphone and my desktop computer (which is a really good computer)
The bug is that in some of my edits, sometimes on and off (when it happens on one edit and not the next) and sometimes randomly, the edit summary box simply isn't there, on some edits I can't add edit summaries.
The second part of the bug is when I type 4 tildes to put a signature, my signature actually gets posted twice. This is annoying as other editors might think I done it on purpose. This happens on about 70% of my signed posts. Please help. Edit: as I'm about to post this edit, there's no summary box. Speedcuber1 ^talk 01:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hello @Speedcuber1, could it be perhaps that you are clicking "New section," the edit summary box doesn't show up when you click that, try just clicking "Edit" and not the "New section" button. Heart ^(talk) 01:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @HeartGlow30797: what would you say regarding the double signature being posted when I'm only typing 4 tildes? There is a summary box when using the edit source button and not using new section. However I'm certain that sometimes in the past 48 hours there has also been no summary box on edits on general pages, even when using the edit source button. Speedcuber1 ^talk 01:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you editing via mobile? --Equivamp - talk 01:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The editor said above this occurs on both their smartphone and desktop. However from their tags, none of their edits have used the mobile web editor since 2019 and I assume the problem started to occur or at least has continued since them. And I don't think they've ever used the app editor either, nor the visual editor. They have used Twinkle, I'm not sure if this has been the cases where the edit summary was missing but the case where the signature was duplicated don't seem to be. Nil Einne (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: don't trust what you see based on your sources of my edits, such as tags, like you mentioned, as what you have said isn't true. I have edited on my phone a lot in the past few months, but bear in mind I have done so on Safari on an iPhone, using the desktop website version of Wikipedia. This is why it isn't showing the (mobile web edit) tag next to my edits and why you got your conclusion. Speedcuber1 ^talk 10:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Speedcuber1: I don't understand why you are saying not to trust tags or why you are claiming what I said isn't true when you have confirmed my summation is accurate. You use your smart phone but do not use the mobile web editor, or any of the app editors. This is what the tags suggested and what I said was happening. Edit: Rereading my comment, perhaps it wasn't as clear as I had intended. However when I said "The editor said above this occurs on both their smartphone and desktop", I meant this is what you said, so we can assume it correct and the problem occurred on both your smartphone and desktop. I then pointed our that although you use your smartphone, you have not used the mobile web editor since 2019 which I suspect it what Equivamp was asking about. And since we can reasonably assume the problem is occurring very recently, it is clearly unrelated to the mobile web editor. Note that that mobile web editor can be used on a desktop, so the problem occurring on a desktop does not rule out it being because of the mobile web editor. However the fact it still occurred did since it was clear from the evidence it was occurring outside the mobile web editor. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:VPT and has nothing to do with admins or this noticeboard. Fram (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Speedcuber1: most of your recent edits have been to talk pages and to the Wikipedia:Teahouse. The edit summary box does not appear when you click "new section" on a talk page or at the Teahouse. If you click "ask a question" at the Teahouse the form is pre-filled with your signature, so if you add ~~~~ it will be added twice. There is no bug and no reason to panic. Also, as Fram says, this noticeboard is really not for technical support and admins have no special insight into how Wikipedia's software works. You posted your question about this at the Teahouse just a couple of hours before posting here, so I suspect if you'd just been a bit more patient you would have got the same answer there without resorting to your "last resort". – Joe (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments - final reminder for applications

A gentle reminder to all gentle readers that the application period for this round of functionary appointments closes at 2359 UTC on Saturday, 18 September. Completed applications must be submitted by that time, so if you wish to be considered, don't delay. Thanks. :-) Katie^talk 11:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:PERM

There seems to be a backlog at WP:PERM. For full disclosure, I have an open request there myself, but there appear to be requests that date back at least to August, if not before. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to delete my account

Goodmorning, I am Karma1998. I'm sorry to disturb you, but I would like to leave Wikipedia have my account deleted. What is the procedure to do that? Thanks.-Karma1998 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: It is impossible to delete Wikipedia accounts as the copyright licence Wikipedia uses requires all edits to be attributed. If you no longer wish to edit here then the best thing to do is to request a wp:courtesy vanishing to have your username changed to a random string, then abandon the account, i.e. remove your email from it and scramble the password. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

How do I scramble the password?-Karma1998 (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: That just means change it to something random you won't remember. I wouldn't. You might change your mind and want to come back. The simplest course is to just stop editing. I was away for three years. I resisted the temptation for years, but the allure drew me back. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: Aside from vanishing (as linked above), another option, if you feel that you don't want to make any edits presently but may return at some point in the future, is to request that your account be blocked. I've seen editors request this when they feel that Wikipedia editing has become a "time suck" for them and need it to resist the temptation in the short-run, while still acknowledging that they may want to edit again in the future. A block of this nature (appropriately articulated in both the block summary and on your talk page, of course) would not suggest that you were blocked for "bad standing," and certainly any reasonable administrator would unblock you if/when you so choose. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kinu: thank you for your help! I think I'll simply retire.-Karma1998 (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I wish to have my new page reviewer rights revoked

I would like my new page reviewer rights revoked. Thank you --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for helping out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Request to add restricted use template to local file description

Please can an admin (or page mover/template editor) please create local description pages for (NSFW) File:UR UF.jpg and File:UR UF2.jpg with {{Restricted use}} as they are on MediaWiki:Bad image list. I am prevented from doing so by the title blacklist due to the name being too common or uninformative (ideally this should only be triggered on upload, not page creation). Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 22:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)