Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive339

Appeal of topic ban for Paul Krugman for User:Deicas

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.

---

@Deicas would like to appeal his 2013 topic ban for editing the article on Paul Krugman. Deicas (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please link to where the topic ban was discussed and address whatever the concerns raised there were. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

So you were editing the article and the talk page today, aware that you were topic banned from the article? Paul Erik caught it, they might know more about the circumstances. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq and Muboshgu:  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782 § PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas 192.76.8.91 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I also saw on Decias's talk page that they claimed to believe that the topic ban was temporary, not indefinite, which would explain editing the page before being corrected. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Deicas has now been blocked by User:Acroterion for making personal attacks. I think this appeal is unlikely to succeed. The same type of behaviour documented in the 2013 topic ban (see User:Calton's links in particular) is now occurring across various articles and talk pages Talk:George Floyd, Talk:Brookings Institution, Talk:Paul Krugman. The user does not appear to understand the feedback that countless editors have been offering, both in 2013 and recently. An indef likely would save everyone a lot of time, sorry to say. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, an indef block is a lot more likely at this point than the topic ban being lifted. In particular in the incident which led to the block Deicas added something which is at the very least problematic from a BLP standpoint [1], added it back when it was reverted [2], and then took a very confrontational attitude to the resulting talk page discussion, culminating in an explicit accusation of bad faith. Other recent talk page discussions e.g. here show the same pattern. Hut 8.5 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I've placed a second block, since Deicas has returned to the same pattern of antagonism aimed at other editors after the first block expired. They're now demanding that the block be lifted so they can make a complaint at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Based on their conduct on their user talkpage, at Talk:Brookings Institution, and at Talk:DE, I recommend that the topic ban remain, and maybe be broadened, or else follow the developing consensus for an indefinite block - there is no change in their conduct from 2013. They seem to be under the impression that if they make a particular set of demands, other editors will compelled to do as they wish, they will be immune to criticism, and the editors they see as antagonists will be sanctioned. Their repeated demands that editors respond to a set of scripted questions or demands for retraction, with claims that not responding as they wish is disruptive or defamatory, have occupied the whole of their recent editing. Talk:Deicas: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Talk:Brookings Institution: [8] [9] [10] [11] and most recently [12]. Talk:DE: [13] [14] [15] Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of cutting off a potentially endless series of wikilawyered appeals, I'm recommending an indefinite community ban, with no possibility of review for at least a year. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

More of the same behavior. I'd support an indef block until they show some awareness of the issues with their editing. I wouldn't leap to a cban yet, per WP:ROPE. If they address the issues with their editing, commit to improve and still have the same editing problems then I'd support a cban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been extending rope for the past week, and there is no improvement since they were first topic-banned in 2013. I see no evidence that there will ever be a change. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, how I see it playing out is they get indeffed, show zero clue, and end up having their talk page access revoked rather than any unblock happening. I'm just wary of going straight to a cban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not had any success in persuading @Acroterion to quote my specific statements whence he justifies the the two blocks that he imposed on me. I've requested this evidence from @Acroterion repeatedly and @Acroterion has refused to provide it (diffs available on request). Absent knowledge of the specific statements, it is difficult for me to address the what I believe to be the impropriety of @Acroterion's bans.

@Acroterion's repeated refusals to provide the requested information are inconsistent with my understanding of his duties as a Wikipedia administrator.

As understand the matter, @ Acroterion's actions were due to his objections  to my well-evidenced assertions that @SPECIFICO was violating WP:DE by ""repeatedly disregard[ing] other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits".  At no time during this dispute, to my knowledge, did @Acroterion attempt to address @SPECIFICO's repeated disregard for my  "questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits".

—Deicas (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Well that ain't it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I have browsed some of their recent edits and I agree with the summaries above -- the pattern seems universal, and not at all affected by the 72-hour block. I would support an indefinite block. --JBL (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This manner of discussion at Talk:George Floyd, both before and after the 72-hour block, and then refusing to drop the stick here is particularly concerning. Generalrelative (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Per the Talk:George Floyd that you reference. Insofar as I understand Wikipedia policy, a demand to "drop the stick" is not a policy-based justification for deleting content from an article. Do i miss understand policy?

As to the "refusing to drop the stick here is particularly concerning" — I refer you to my comments here — User talk:Drmies. Nb. "Closing the discussion is disruptive and is harmful to the process of obtaining consensus through discussion. [ WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS) "

It is my understanding that a demand to "drop the stick" is not appropriate until a content dispute has been a resolve at the appropriate notice board(s). Am I misunderstanding the dispute resolution process?

—Deicas (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The endless wikilawyering continues; there's more of it on my talk page, following what I thought was an act of mercy on Talk:George Floyd. I don't understand how they didn't realize that an indef block (or a community ban? take your pick) was not going to be the inevitable outcome of this kind of appeal. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: Deicas has 190 article edits. A quarter of them are on Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation, now a redirect despite Deicas's 11 edits to the AfD and 18 edits to the talk page, and on Paul Krugman, from which they are topic-banned (and they made 97 edits to the Krugman talk page). I am trying to ascertain where the positive edits are. I now fully support an indef block. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Deny the removal of the topic ban, because obviously. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support indef block and revoking their access to their talk page per the many well-argued comments supporting the necessity of such a sanction. It's the only and necessary way to protect the project from all the wikilawyering in multiple venues. It's all a huge timesink. -- Valjean (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Deicas (talk · contribs) continues with WP:IDHT behavior at BLPN which concerns this edit at Brookings Institution#Notable scholars. If I counted correctly, that section shows 19 notable scholars, most with a job description. The result of the disputed edit is that the last scholar has no job description other than "indicted Steele dossier source". Recent issues discussed at their talk start at User talk:Deicas#Paul Krugman and follow, with two recent blocks and an unblock request which I declined. I will post at their talk to remind them of this discussion and that it may conclude with an indefinite block or even a community ban, and that now would be a good time to review the discussions at various pages and state here whether any change in approach would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Unban request from Hulged (Wahhid)

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.

---

Hulged, who appears to be banned under WP:3X originally as Wahhid, is requesting their ban be lifted. The block on both accounts was placed by Drmies and the de-facto ban was noted by Blablubbs. You can see the sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wahhid/Archive and with my checkuser glasses, I see no recent evidence of block evasion. Their request follows. --Yamla (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am Hulged and I am making unblock request after a good time editing on simplewiki, commonswiki where I am autopatroller, kswiki, metawiki and other non-wikimedia wikis like Miraheze. Few months ago, I was blocked for using the VOA's. Looking at the policies, I understand this wasn’t acceptable and that warranted a block. I understood why am I blocked. I will never use multiple accounts abusively again, including using VOA accounts and WP:GHBH accounts. I'll focus on the work I used to do previously like content creation, counter vandalism and AFC work (if I'll be given access again). I have previously declared all the accounts that I've used before but for clarity's sake these are Wahhid, EditorThanos, TheHornbill, Ollipinno, Juslit, Ulluly. But I would like to be as honest as I am IRL; I've created 4 other accounts – Dhonka, Majaple, Malihajan and Malliha and there have been nearly 6 months since I created these accounts and I have made 2 edits (here and here) from these accounts. Thank you for reading. --Hulged (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hulged appealed the block to ArbCom in April 2021, which was declined largely on the grounds of recent socking. In such cases, we generally ask that appellants wait at least six months before attempting another appeal. However, Hulged appealed again about two weeks after the initial appeal, which was summarily declined. Hulged then appealed in early August 2021; this appeal was quickly declined as well based on a combination of concerns, mostly IDHT and it not yet being October, and this point, the clock was reset to another six months (eligible in February 2022). There was again an appeal at the end of August, and then at the end of October. ArbCom decisions like such don't preclude the community from reversing the ban now, but I think this information is of interest. ArbCom is at a point where we don't respond to further emails from this user on the matter largely because of IDHT issues. Maxim_(talk) 19:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  Youch. Thanks for the additional context. I was not aware of this. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm far too soft (and am unlikely to have to deal with the fallout) but I suspect this person will be a net positive if restored based on their work on other Wikis. But I'll defer to folks with more experience with similar issues and this specific person. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Their contributions to other Wikimedia projects is enough to convince me that their return will be a net positive. Although their IDHT behaviour as pointed out by Maxim is concerning. — curiousGolden ^{call me maybe?} 22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Just another timesink. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support, as they have made substantial crosswiki contributions.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Maxim, waste of our time. Sandstein 07:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Maxim. Forum shopping like this shouldn't be encouraged. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Maxim and Joe. We should not be encouraging forum shopping and given their interactions with ArbCom it appears that this user will simply waste the community’s precious time. firefly ( t · c ) 10:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Although I don't doubt their commitment towards not abusing further multiple accounts, the information raised by Maxim about their appeals to ArbCom does give me pause. For context, I was the adopter of Hulged before sockpuppetry was found. Their cross-wiki contributions do suggest that this user will, if unblocked, be likely a net positive for the community. However, I do understand and partly share the concerns raised by the oppose voters. On the balance of the information given I am supporting an unban because I feel that, due to this user's constructive contributions on other wikis, giving them a second chance is more likely to benefit the encyclopedia than harm it. However, if the community decides to unban I would like to see it as a last chance. I would also be willing to adopt again Hulged if they are unbanned. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Query @Hulged: I am interested in hearing your response to the issues raised in your past appeals by ARBCOM. My reading of it makes me concerned that even if you don't abuse multiple accounts again, you won't react well in the event of differing issues arising - an "I don't hear you" attitude is dangerous in any discussion. Your cross-wiki work makes me willing to ask you for your thoughts. I'll watchlist your talk page and copy across any relevant answer. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The response:' Hi Nosebagbear. Everything Maxim said is true. The first appeal was declined on the grounds on recent socking and I was told to adhere to the standard offer. I created other accounts in ending May - starting June. Yet in my June appeal, I was cought socking again although I didn't made too many contributions using those accounts and they are already revealed in my AN appeal.
    Then, I started to help out on meta, simple and other wikis. I appealed in August mainly because I though my behavior has changed and I can be eligible to be unblocked under WP:Standard offer#Variations but that appeal was declined again. Two months later (in October), I made another appeal (this too on the grounds of WP:SO#Variations) but they didn't replied and I thought they might be busy with the ACE2021. So, I headed over to AN with my appeal. I was operating in good faith and I never meant to behave in IDHT attitude or being disruptive. I was just hoping for the best of Wikipedia. Though for the future reference, I will surely avoid the IDHT/disruptive behavior. --Hulged (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I state this with the general intention of clarifying the timeline (and specifically, to comment on "they didn't replied"): ArbCom replied/commented on 5 Aug that further appeals would not be considered before Feb 2022. This was reiterated in a reply following a 30 Aug appeal, in which we also specified that further appeals before that time would be ignored. Thus, only their 28 Oct appeal was ignored.
      That being said, if the community feels that the somewhat overzealous attempts at appealing to ArbCom are worth overlooking, I have no issues with that; personally the socking was my largest concern, which seems to have abated. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Anyone that needs a policy that explains VOAs are bad should not be editing here. Tiderolls 12:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support - I don't think it's likely that the user will repeat the mistake that got them blocked (i.e. sockpuppetry). Their contributions to places like simplewiki look productive and suggest that the user can be a net positive. They can be blocked again if there are any future IDHT concerns. On an unrelated note, why was arbcom considering an unblock request if they were 3X banned - do they have the power to overturn such bans? Pahunkat (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Handling of ban appeals. As this block is labelled as a CU block, that part can be reviewed by ArbCom. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Maxim and IDHT concerns. I'm not seeing enough reform to override the reset of the block. If the situation is the same in Feb, count me as a support. Buffs (talk) 18:49, 23 November 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.

Backlog at WP:UAA

The page is rapidly filling up, HBC AIV helperbot5 dutifully posted a notice, but to no avail... So... Pretty please with a cherry on top? Kleuske (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The backlog has been cleared. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved administrator to close a discussion

WP:ANI#TBAN proposal: The Pollster - consensus seems clear. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Having a look now. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban implemented. Thanks, Euryalus. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

User "ZaniGiovanni" canvassing on Wiki, trying to push his POV

If you look at his total contributions, this user is not in Wikipedia to enrich it, but to push Armenian point of view.

Currently he is engaged in edit war with me over Bernard Lewis page. There was an arbitrarily cut quote from Bernard Lewis, so I included the whole quote which takes 30 seconds to read in total. And user is constantly reverting it saying it has "copyright" or that it's "long". He's also been warned in the past about edit warring and finding himself too much in Admins notice board.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ZaniGiovanni

And I think this user is also his account, "fighting" and edit warring on the same pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maidyouneed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.176.66 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP has not notified either user. They are also clearly edit-warring, but, unfortunately, none of the editors reverting the IP has seen fit to warn the IP. I have done so but simultaneously with the IP's latest revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP's response to my warning was unacceptable, and I've blocked them for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Majors and his possible sockpuppets attempting to push fake news and POV onto pages

2021 United States Capitol attack and Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, hes attempting to put in fake news of "antifa blm and fbi/capitol police involvement in the capitol attack", aswell as putting his own POV and a "documentary" about the attack, he also apparently has a sockpuppet called BrucePowell, and i bet that hes gonna use it to circumvent his block on the page Enrique Tarrio, one thing that made me quite suspecious about his account is the fact that he came back after 10-12 YEARS, that is quite suspicious. EpicWikiLad (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

He has (if he is a sock]) [[16]]. I came here after leaving an edit war notice on his talk page. its clear he is POV pushing and has not attempted to make any kind of justification for his edits at talk. I am getting a string not here vibe.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

And maybe socking [[17]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven and several other editors do not want links to new documentaries with new footage and new interviews with Ashli Babbitt, her husband, people jailed for being at the January 6 rally (including those who were not even in the Capitol). Since they want a tailored and fabricated narrative of the events, with only what they think will be the ultimate historical "view" of it, their "editing" activity invalidates wikipedia as a source of information. This Pravda level of memory holing deserves attention by journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePowell (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That does not excuse socking or edit warring. May I ask do you have a wp:coi with the video? And the above is a clear indication of not here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of 'new documentaries', regardless of their subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Block the sock & its sock-master, who was away (or was he) for nearly 10 years. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked both plus a "Brucemajors" who made this interesting edit[18]. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Spicy! 🥴 — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Likely case of block evasion

The IP address 47.201.34.58 has recently made several unsourced changes to Cuba-related articles, changes which are identical to those made by the Inversiveskills2021 and their socks. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the IP had an upsurge in edits immediately after Inversiveskills2021 and their socks were blocked. Seems like a very likely case of block evasion to me, requesting immediate action. CentreLeftRight ✉ 07:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: I have blocked the IP address for three months. As you may have seen, another administrator had blocked it for a short while, but that was ineffective, as one could expect for a persistent disruptive sockpuppeteer such as this one. JBW (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Elmar Baxşəliyev re-blocked for copyright violations, 28 recent articles remain

• Elmar Baxşəliyev (talk · contribs)
• Aratəpə necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dərə Şahbuz (archeological site) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sələsüz (archeological site) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yumru Sürümçək (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zirincli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tamaşalı (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dana Fortress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mərdangöl necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dəmirli necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dəmyələr necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ağbulaq necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Billava necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Camaldın necropolises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dirəkdaş necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Əbrəqunus necropolises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sarıdərə necropolises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Boyəhməd necropolises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qaragüney necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qarabulaq necropolis III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Axura nekropolises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goshatapa(Sharur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Albantəpə necropolis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nakhchivan necropolises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Middle Chalcolithic culture in Nakhchivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bülövqaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Uzun oba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Uçan ağıl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chalcolithic culture of Nakhchivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nakhchivan rock signs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been notified about the first article in this list, which is a direct translation of http://www.anl.az/el/Kitab/2017/07/cd/Azf-250397.pdf , page 60, "105. Аrаtəpə nеkrоpоlu", and thus a copyright violation. Other articles may be unattributed translations of their azwiki counterparts (linked via Wikidata). The user had been blocked for this behavior before.

I can't check all these articles for translation copyright violations. I'd personally be in favor of deleting them all via Special:Nuke/Elmar Baxşəliyev, but I expect opposition to this idea, so here's the list of work caused by not doing this. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

These articles are new enough to not have talk pages. I would support nuking them. Nothing to be gained by wasting contributor time checking them before deleting them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel like checking them all either, but I can at least say this much: The necropolis articles were pretty much identical on the German and the English WP, and I checked the Billava one yesterday before it got deleted: Google Translate did a lousy job of translating from the original language, but it was quite clear that that was a copyvio from that source. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: As the user's name matches the author of the sources from which all the copyrighted content was apparently translated and pasted in, did anyone ask the user if these sources were written by them and pointing out that they still were unable to use their own writing on Wikipedia unless properly licenced? I suspect this is the situation here - not that it excuses anything, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

The last name being identical, this question has indeed been raised on the user's talk page on the German Wikipedia. The problem is that he apparently does not understand a word of German, so it's absolutely no use trying to communicate with him. His machine generated replies keep being something like "Thank you for your comment, I will try to watch my grammar better in the future".

FYI, he has also been banned on Commons several times for uploading copyrighted material. He has now been using material uploaded by another (??) user that looks very much like copyrighted material to me too. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for that explanation. What a shame. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, it would convert a "copyright violation" to a "violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy", I guess. To me personally, that does make an important difference especially when determining how problematic the behavior is, and how strict the response needs to be. I wasn't aware of this; I thought I had compared the names and didn't notice a similarity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, we simply don't know what the relationship between the author of that source and this user is. They might be father and son, or brothers, or just two people who happen to have the same last name. Or it might be himself, using a different first name on Wikipedia, for whatever reason. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• If anyone is doing any clean-up on these, please add "in Azerbaijan" to the first line, which he never did! Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Last time I blocked him it was for copying from English sources. Communication was difficult but I did think that the message got through eventually. At a guess, what's happened here is that he didn't realise translations were also covered by copyright, or that he assumed (correctly?) that it was fine to translate his own work from another source. I don't think we should nuke all these without some more investigation. Chalcolithic culture of Nakhchivan, for example, cites multiple sources. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for posting this here ToBeFree. I'll look into these like a CCI Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I've opened a CCI at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20211127 (dated because it appears to be a real name); some articles aren't violations, so it's better to have a coordinated cleanup then nuke everything. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 03:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Arshad Khan (writer/director , India)

The article got moved too Arshad Khan (Indian filmmaker) while under AfD. Can a move rights or admin reverse that thanks. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

hmm, another article was reverted last time this happened, I am confused now. Govvy (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern about admin at Alpha Motor Corporation Page

Alpha Motor Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moved from Special:PermaLink/1057264454

Alpha Motor Corporation page was started by WaddlesJP13. Several information on that page was false and edits were made however any edits made were rejected by admin JBW, The Alternate Maco and WaddlesJP13. They falsely accused sock and spam to protect page from further edits. The edits made also cited references and those references and edits were also deleted by admin JBW. It is apparent that JBW, The Alternate Maco, and WaddlesJP13 are blocking edits specific to a false narrative of the company and then citing reference which reference has no mention of this statement or wording. As a admin JBW has most recently protected this page until February 2022 based on a false accusation of dodging a block as if he owns Wikipedia and the Article on Alpha Motor Corporation. This action in itself is against the foundation of Wikipedia. Please review as this is blatant Admin abuse. 184.184.155.254 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• The above is likely a block-evading sock. That said, the source doesn't support the relationship indicated (though it seems darn likely that the statement is more-or-less true). I've started a discussion on the talk page. I'm not seeing any sourced material removed by anyone other than by those who appear to be from/related to Alpha Motor. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This dispute seems to be mainly focused on the linking of this company to another company, Neuron EV, based at exactly the same office (not just the same building, the same actual office suite) according to this source. According to the source, the founder of Alpha was an executive at Neuron; their website followed a similar design, Alpha was launched just as Neuron was being disbanded etc. and yet Alpha have put out numerous statements denying any link between the two companies. It seems we have a sock who is intent on removing that information from the article - initially as User:Alphamotorcorporation and then several subsequent accounts. On that basis I'd say the protection looks reasonable.

One thing I would note though is that the text in the WP article actually calls Alpha a "successor" to Neuron, a word that isn't used in the source. From what I can tell from a quick search, Neuron EV is still trading. Despite Alpha's protestations it seems correct to say the companies are very clearly linked to one another but I think use of the word "successor" isn't quite right. But I don't see anything amiss in the reverts, blocks and protection that have been used here. WaggersTALK 15:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to drop by and say that I checked the locations of these IP editors and they are all based out of Southern California and likely work for Alpha Motor Corporation, and are trying to remove anything that potentially damages the company's reputation. Maybe 'successor' wasn't the best word in the dictionary to use but clearly there's a relation between Alpha and Neuron with its executives, websites, headquarters, etc., and it looks like the socks/COI editors are trying to sneakily remove that claim for whatever reason. There is a lot more lore to this company, including scam claims and the 'Icon' model that was basically completely erased from the website. Waddles Gobbles 🍂 🦃 16:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• The word "successor" may not be ideal. If the cited source is correct then the one company was set up by the same people, or some of the same people, who had been responsible for the other company, in order to carry on similar business after the original company was no longer operating, and that relationship can reasonably be described as being a "successor" company, but on the other hand the word could be interpreted as implying a legal connection as a continuation of the same business, which probably is not the case. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for someone to substitute an alternative form of wording which conveys essentially the same information in a less ambiguous form. I don't see that as a substantial problem. However, as far as the blocks and page protection are concerned, it is perfectly clear that what we are dealing with is someone editing on behalf of the company (the first account was named Alphamotorcorporation) in order to remove information unfavourable to the company, and who on being blocked has shifted to other accounts and then, when they were blocked, to IP editing. The editor has been acting in violation of the guideline on conflict of interest, the policies on neutral point of view, use of multiple accounts, and block-evasion, and the Wikimedia Foundation's requirement for disclosure of paid editing. The editor has been informed of the relevant issues regarding conflict of interest, and told how to request an unblock. If they choose to ignore that information, and instead keep evading the block, they will find that their accounts and IP addresses keep getting blocked. Contrary to what they evidently think, far from being "against the foundation of Wikipedia" or "Admin Abuse", that is plain and simple implementation of Wikipedia policies. JBW (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• To make my position on this clear, (in all due respect) I couldn't give a rats about the content dispute, hence I'll keep out of that. On the other hand I do give a rats about blatant COI editing, corporate whitewashing, sockpuppetry and block evasion. Honestly, if Alpha motors corporation wants to improve their corporate image, they could start by avoiding this sort of carry-on. I rather think that WP:GRIEF applies quite aptly here, Alpha needs to just move on to the last stage. Mako001 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - When an IP address complains about administrator abuse, regular editors usually only read the report to see if a block is in order. In this case, the IP has been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ivana Alawi

Hi! I am in a editing conflict with User:Carl Francis. First, he always revert my edits in Ivana Alawi, can anyone tell what is my mistake there, I've only abbreviated the ref. column in the filmography table of the article, because it is in the WP:ACTOR, but this editor always reverts my edits. Can anyone explain this? I thought Wikipedia is for collaboration. Even all featured articles in WP:ACTOR are have abbreviated Ref. Please clarify the rule of Wikipedia, I'm just following the rule but why this editor keeps reverting my edits. Second, in WP:ACTOR allows rowspan in filmography table, this user dont allow it, can anyone also explain this? Third, the standard use of how to reference is not followed in pages where he editing, like Ivana Alawi too... I tried to fix the reference section, like the reference section in other pages and just put reflist template, because it's hard to cite a source in that page, but this user reverted it. I think he owning all the article he created.—It'sCtrlwiki • talk • 00:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• WP:BRD is your friend. You added a format change twice, it was reverted. Since you are making the change from a stable edit, it is up to you to explain and get consensus on the talk page. Neither of you has used the talk page. In short, this isn't an admin issue, it is an editing issue, so take it to the talk page of the article, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Global ban for 1Goldberg2

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for 1Goldberg2. – Mrakia 16:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mrakia - Does this mean that we can offer our opinions here, or that we can offer our !votes in Meta? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

It is best to do it on Meta.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Consensus for a global ban is conducted through GRFC on Meta. Please, leave a comment there. – Mrakia 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Failed login attempts

I've just changed (and upgraded) my password after being automatically notified of 18 50+ failed login attempts over the last few hours. Just thought I'd report this lest anyone else is experiencing a similar attempt to access their admin account. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It could be someone working through one of the many hacked-password sites that list username/password pairs that have been extracted from hacked websites. Or, it could be a troll. Providing people use a good and unique password (never used anywhere else), there is no need to worry until you get millions of failed login attempts. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment Not sure whether related or not, but it would probably worth to look at this discussion: Jeppiz#Your account. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, both, for those pointers. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's #Level 1 desysop of Epbr123 too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A checkuser can determine if a particular IP is trying and failing to log into someone's account. But without knowing the IP, and only having the name of the target account it's impossible to make progress. A Mediawiki improvement might be considered that would allow the identity of the IP attacking the account to be found. The WMF might consider implementing T174388. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Welcome to the club. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rank me among the least technologically sophisticated administrators, but it seems clear to me that it is useful and justifiable for more sophisticated administrators to know as much as possible about anybody trying to hack administrator's accounts. Yes, I occasionally get reports of attempts to log into my account. I use a password based on a scrambled version of a unique and very obscure childhood memory that I do not use on any other website, so I am confident. But I would like to know which troll(s) occasionally try to hack my account. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vakkachan Chirayath

[19] User that was indef blocked for advertising continues to promote on their talk page. Requesting WP:TPA revocation. Courtesy ping blocking admin Materialscientist. Curbon7 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 15:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Slow edit war

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

---

This may not be the best venue for making this request but I would like to request semi-protection (at least a month but suggest 45 days) for Battle of Malplaquet because of a slow edit war by an IP that does not engage in discussion initiated at Talk:Battle of Malplaquet#Result - again.. Pls see examples: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I have protected for a year given that it was protected earlier this year for 3 month, and no recent IP edits seem to be constructive.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 29 November 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.

Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the case Horn of Africa as follows:

The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are made permanent. The committee declines to open a full case. Any further amendments or requests for clarification should be made following the normal method.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

Horror movie editors, I'm calling on your institutional memory

A while ago I blocked an editor/sock nest who were making puerile test edits to tons of articles on horror movies, including genre changes, name links, punctuation, mostly in the lead. I just ran into another one, User:Nedorotmyisipi887325086, and blocked them and a few sock accounts--but for the life of me I cannot remember any of the names of earlier accounts. Do these edits ring a bell for any of you? Drmies (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Don't know who you blocked "a while ago", but there is Penhaot10028.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23; perhaps NinjaRobotPirate can help out. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The genre changing and the nonsense username look like a Jinnifer sock. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The edits are very Jinnifer-like, although those are not articles that Jinnifer has edited in the past. On the other hand, most of the sock's go-to articles are now protected, so they can't hang out in their favorite playgrounds anymore. Grandpallama (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

YES--thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked from editing propositional calculus page.

Hi,

I have been blocked from editing a page based on a false claim of edit warring. I think the person who blocked me is doing so out of prejudice for the ideas I was writing. I discussed my changes in the talk section before making any changes and there were no objections. If the issue was solely that there were not enough sources then that should have been discussed in the report section, not blocked.

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. You can view the full block details at account contributions.

The block was made by ‪Favonian‬.

The reason given is:

Edit warring: Resumed as soon as previous block expired

Start of block: 18:58, 29 November 2021 Expiration of block: 18:58, 1 March 2022 Intended blockee: 150.135.165.0/26 Block ID #12162581 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.165.50 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The page history would indicate that a number of editors have opposed your edits on the grounds of being unsourced or without explanation/consensus. That sounds a lot more likely than...calculus...prejudice. I'd recommend using the WP:EDITREQUEST function, and just generally working with people on the talk page more, while you're blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed! I may harbor prejudices in some areas, but propositional calculus is not one of them. You may mistake your opponents' silence for consent, but I'm afraid that more likely explanations are exhaustion and a feeling relief when you were blocked from the article. Let be therefore use this opportunity to remind Megaman en m and Jochen Burghardt about the open discussion at Talk:propositional calculus#Propositional calculus as branch of modern formal logic as branch of analytic philosophy. Favonian (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

IP editors (presumably one person) have been slow edit warring on this article for about six weeks. This will not be permitted. If you want changes to this article, then gain consensus at Talk: Propositional calculus. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Unprotect page Armando_Bukele_Kattán

Valid content from this page has been removed and the editions are blocked. Please restore the section of Controversies and False Attributions. Review and validate the veracity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.228.82 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a content issue. Please discuss on the article's talk page and gain consensus for inclusion. Pinging Ohnoitsjamie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The page (Armando Bukele Kattán) is not protected, but maybe it should, as some editors appears to want to insert WP:OR to a WP:BLP. Isabelle ^🔔 15:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I already partial-blocked one IP range for repeatedly adding WP:NOR nonsense into the article; may have to expand that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I made my response before fully reading the diffs, and yeah, it was no good. The book is false <link to amazon reviews>. Good stuff. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

AfD input requested - discussion impacted by external canvassing

Hi all,

This is a neutral notice requesting additional input from experienced editors and administrators at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argonne Rebels Drum and Bugle Corps.

I have had to take some drastic action due to off-wiki canvassing, including semi-protection of the discussion page and moving contributions from canvassed IP's to the talk page.

This discussion will benefit from more eyes and input, to determine a clear consensus of established Wikipedians to 'keep' or 'delete' (or any other alternative).

Thanks,
Daniel (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Daniel: my input is that AfD closers are capable of dealing with spam like this and moving things to the talk page was inappropriate. Especially when some sources were provided in those comments. Trust your fellow admins. The semi-protect was okay given the issues, though I'm not thrilled. These are people trying to participate, they just don't know the rules yet. We get new folks through things like this (this type of thing is exactly how I got involved years and years ago) and I'd like to make them feel they will be listened to if they learn our rules. Not that new people don't count. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Daniel, I see why you might have chosen to take those two rather unusual steps, but I remain to be convinced that either was absolutely necessary, or indeed in line with our policies and practice. In my view a lot of IPs showing up and leaving an WP:ILIKEIT vote (yes, vote) with no basis in policy is going to have zero effect on the outcome of the AfD – it's just background noise that will be filtered out by the closer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was unreadable to the point that it discouraged other experienced editors from contributing. While I agree any closer worth their salt would have discarded, I viewed the potential problem that the gargantuan mess would have likely seen established editors avoid the discussion altogether, to be one of concern. The other option was to group and then 'hat' all the IP !votes, which I will likely use in future. While I agree we want new editors participating, what we don't want is drive-by IP's explicitly instructed from a series of Facebook posts to "go vote to save our article". If the disruption is a net negative, it needs to be stopped. Daniel (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Restored and hatted. Daniel (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested redirect creations for blacklisted music-note titles

Would it be possible for an admin to create the following redirects? I cannot do it, as the titles are blacklisted.

• 𝅘𝅥𝅯 → Sixteenth note
• 𝅘𝅥𝅰 → Thirty-second note
• 𝅘𝅥𝅱 → Sixty-fourth note
• 𝅘𝅥𝅲 → Hundred twenty-eighth note
• 𝆹𝅥 → Mensural notation
• 𝆺𝅥 → Mensural notation
• 𝆹𝅥𝅮 → Mensural notation
• 𝆺𝅥𝅮 → Mensural notation
• 𝆹𝅥𝅯 → Mensural notation
• 𝆺𝅥𝅯 → Mensural notation

We already have the redirects for the longer notes and the corresponding rests: see Musical Symbols (Unicode block).

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirects created. (For posterity, non-admin page movers and template editors can create blacklisted titles, although I've only ever seen requests for them end up at AN, so there's no particular issue requesting them here. Might be worth making it more explicit somewhere -- the "can only be made by people with X perms" banner mentions all three perms that can do it, but is there an error message for non-admins/PMRs/TPEs that only mentions admins?) Vaticidalprophet 10:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There is indeed such a message: MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit. (The default text there isn't exactly what one sees in practice. Visit [25] while logged out if you're curious.) Would it be better to just direct people to make a template-edit request on the talkpage? That's what we do with editnotices. (Perhaps there should be a {{title blacklist edit request}} in addition to the standard {{template edit request}}, otherwise there'd be no easy way for a non-TPE pagemover viewing CAT:TPER to know which cases they can action, although with editnotices it's clear enough from the page title.) Or maybe any of that would be more trouble than it's worth, since AN gets 1-2 of these requests per month. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 17:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk pages usually face the same blacklist problems. Pointing people to this page seems reasonable (WP:RFED might be another option, which I don't think is more favourable). Maybe plant an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit to change the wording? I would recommend reading the most recent edit request. It's something I currently have no answer for. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the message I got told me that creation of the page was "currently restricted to administrators", and that I should post a request either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. And this did seem to be a logical place to post the request if only admins could do it. Though Vaticidalprophet (thanks!) has now helpfully noted that actually that's not the case. I really don't have an opinion on where non-admins like me should be directed to when we do need to create something on the title-blacklist, as long as it's clear where to go. :D Double sharp (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Heads up, pointer to a discussion which affects the admin corps to a degree

Here: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Adding "AfD closer" status. Admin participation welcome. For those who have time to read it and consider it, of course.

Participation from admins in particular would be welcome because the idea (not a formal proposal yet) effects the admin corps in two ways: it moots relief from one burden the admin corps carries, but on the other hand impinges on what is now a sole prerogative of the admin corps. Go there, if you will; no benefit to writing in this thread here I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

EugeneZelenko

Out of scope. The Commons' Administrator Noticeboard is at COM:AN — Golden call me maybe? 20:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EugeneZelenko#Notification_about_possible_deletion ]] has arbitrarily, and with no reason whatsoever, decided that three photos I had uploaded were "unlikely" to be my own work. He says that "I" have to prove that they're mine. On what basis? I think he should prove that they're not mine. Suspects is free: I don't think I should be the one to spend my time to prove something only because "he" suspects following complicate procedures explained in long technical-detailed service pages half of which I don't understand. I notice that he has spent the whole day today doing similar things, and I find his work disruptive. Thank you for your intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acqueamare (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC) @Acqueamare Sorry, but this is a Commons issue and not something admins on English Wikipedia can deal with. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Acqueamare, this page is for dealing with issues on the English Wikipedia – please resolve this on Commons, either on their user talk page (which I see you've posted to already) or if that fails then on their admin noticeboard for users (COM:AN/U). Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Oh my god. Anyone willing to help and say what someone "could" do, instead of replying what "not" to do? This is frustrating.

User:B. M. L. Peters

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 user ignored Talk, adding a political position to the Liberal Party (UK) article at will #, and also describing the political position of the Liberal Party as "Centre," not "Centre to centre-left." # Of course, the Liberal Party was pushed to "Centre" after the Labour Party emerged, BUT until the 19th century, it was clearly in a "Left" political position against the "Right" Tory Party (even if LP was a classical liberal party).
• In addition, this user deleted "economic liberalism" among the ideologies written in the infobox in the article "British Conservative Party." He doesn't even go through Talk.
• B. M. L. Peters tried to add "national conservatism" to the infobox in an Indian National Congress article. "National conservatism" and "centre-left" contradict each other. # (WP:V)
  • In particular, the fact that the user changed the political position that had long been written "Centre to Centre-left" to "Centre-left" just because the source of "Centre" was not cited in the book shows a serious ignorance of Indian politics.
  • I changed the political position of "Centre to Centre-left" to "Centre-left" in an article related to the Democratic Party of American politics by region also affected me to suffer a topical ban on American politics. But why is no one willing to discipline this user for changing his "political position" and making vandalism in Asian political articles? India is NOT a two-party system like the United States, and the INC is much very very more socially conservative than the Democratic Party of the United States. INC is a clear "Centre" party located between the Communist Party, a major "left-wing" party, and the BJP, a major "right-wing" party.
  • B. M. L. Peters has been similarly edited in other articles. # Naturally, "liberal conservaism" is an ideology that can never be classified as "centre-left". The term "liberal" in "liberal conservatism" is not "liberal" in the context of American politics, but refers to right-liberalism such as classical liberalism or conservative liberalism.
• In a Communist Party of Soviet Union article, B. M. L. Peters tried to write it individually on the infobox even though Stalinism was Marxism-Leninism. # #
• B. M. L. Peters deleted "conservatism" from the infobox of the People Power Party (South Korea) article without reading the article properly. PPP belongs to the traditional "conservative camp" in South Korea. # In addition, the user edited seriously ignorant of South Korean politics.
• The user arbitrarily removed the phrase "Secularism" in the infobox, which has long been written without problems, just because there is no source in the Fatah article. He also made strange edits to Fatah's political position. #
• In addition, B. M. L. Peters has made several strange edits in numerous Asian political articles.

I think this user should at least get a topic ban on Asian politics.--Storm598 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I admit that I lack knowledge of American politics-related topics than "B.M.L.Peters." I don't have much knowledge there. However, I have been reading related materials and books for nearly a decade regarding Northeast Asian politics, India, Palestine, Pakistan, and British and German politics. That's why I can clearly say that "B.M.L. Peters" has a very poor knowledge, distorted, and POV perspective in some national political editing.--Storm598 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In particular, to restore the strangely edited articles by B. M. L. Peters to their original state, I even quoted the book. #, # --Storm598 (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

B. M. L. Peters/ my response: Now let's set the record straight, and find the actual truth here. (responses in order of claim)

• The Liberal Party being a party of two factions, both social liberal and classical liberal would make the party centrist naturally, or at least centre-left to centre-right because social liberalism is considere centre-left and classical liberalism is considered centre-right, the reason for adding a position when it was empty was because of the historical significance of the party in British politics, it was worthy of a political position or else would seem incomplete. However I did not read talk and that is my fault, and have no problem with it being reverted.
• The reason for deleting economic liberalism from the infobox in the British Conservative Party was clearly written in the description, which was to bring attention to an issue on the talk page that is getting overlooked. Directly related to the respective edit.
• INC, the Indian National Congress edit he is referring and linking to in his claim, was actually me removing an invalid source, used for the parties membership figures, which did not support what the article was claiming. By the way Centre-left and National Conservatism were both sourced within the article. Also It is under my impression that published books, journals, and written textbooks are better sources than websites. NOTE: the link the user uses for this specific claim against me is actually another editor. But the jist of his claim is correct.
  • The user is clearly stating his personal opinion here.
  • The user removed sourced material, yes centre-leftism and national conservatism are contradictory, but were both sourced properly.
  • The user once again has linked an edit by a completely different use than me.
• Yes, the CPSU was governed under democratic centralism during Lenin and after Stalin, Stalinism was added to let readers know the system of government Stalin ruled by, which was neither Leninism or Marxism-Leninism, which both operated based on democratic centralism. Stalinism is a system of government, not a political ideology like the other two.
• Yes I deleted Conservatism from the People's Power Party in South Korea because it it was unsourced.
• Ideologies were unsourced within the article, wanted to give the political positions a chance to get sourced so added citations needed for both positions.

Summary: In the end, this user has, multiple times, stated I have no knowledge of Asian or European politics (you can see my talk page for one example) based on a majority of the edits which are me removing unsourced material or adding citation needed claims on others. While this user has also tagged me to edits I have never made and are completely different users, and threatened me with retaliation for editing pages and topics he deems exclusively his. This user has also reverted my edits claiming POV in some cases. I am not doing harm to any article on Wikipedia. I am here to help! But maybe we can figure this issue out! To be fair this editor has quite a few times before placed back what was unsourced claims I removed in some articles, with the claims, sourced. (Sorry for not formatting my responses the best way, I am not the most experienced editor or coder, just amatuer, but the responses are in order of the claims). B. M. L. Peters (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:INFOBOX. All sources should not be described in infobox. Especially if it's a contradictory ideology or political position. For example, India's INC since the 1990s is much more often referred to as "bigtent" or "social liberalism" than is referred to as "socialism" or (national-)"conservatism," so only the former should be described. And even if there is no source in the infobox, you must check whether the source is revealed in the article. In the case of South Korea's PPP, it is said that there was no source of "conservatism" in Infobox at the time, but there was definitely a source in the article.--Storm598 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And when it comes to articles about the Liberal Party (UK), it's the 21st century that "classical liberalism" is the "centre-right". But in the 19th century, "(classical-)liberalism" is not necessarily a "centre-right". The Liberal Party currently does NOT exist, and in 19th century British politics, it was not located in the "Centre" and since the rise of the Labour Party, social liberals have been more mainstream than classical liberals. Therefore, simply describing the Liberal Party as "Centre" is a left-biased technique. (I don't think the Liberal Party's political position should be described, but if the Liberal Party's political position should be described, I think it should be described as "Centre to centre-left".) --Storm598 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And dividing "liberalism" into "classical liberalism" and "social liberalism" is also an English-American perspective. In Europe and South Korea, "liberalism" is divided into "conservative liberalism" (centre-right) and "social liberalism" (centre-left). (See. Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group and Renew Europe) "Classical liberalism" has a very wide spectrum of left-libertarian like Noam Chomsky (left-wing), including the People's Party of Canada, some Alt-right (far-right).--Storm598 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, if the article reveals a "source" for a particular ideology, you don't have to put a "source" when describing a particular ideology in the infobox. PPP is South Korea's leading "conservative" party, and in fact, there is no need for a source. Your removal of "conservatism" from infobox is proof that you know nothing about South Korean politics. Am I wrong? --Storm598 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Okay I will give you some credit, perhaps I am viewing historical scenarios from a 21st century perspective, however, to continuously claim I have no knowledge of different topics is counterproductive. Just because I do not study certain topics does not mean I can't provide quality of life upgrades to articles. I understand the South Korean PPP article now so thank you for telling me about it. Also American and European politics are different yes, but I have studied each a long time, and classical liberalism is considered centre-right in the US as well, and social liberalism (termed new liberalism) is considered centre-left, not so different. You would be right in assuming I do not understand fully Asian politics yet, it is a recent interests, specifically East Asian politics for me, but to claim I know nothing of it, to discredit me, and try to get me to stop editing certain pages is helping no one. Right now on this thread on the Wiki admins notice board is the first time you have actually linked me to pages that can help explain to me how to use Wikipedia, before it was only personal attacks, towards my "knowledge" and "education".

Also final point, some of the claims you have made against me are actually other editors edits, I do not know if you realize that, or are adding them there to build a case against me, hoping no one will notice, either way a handful of the edits you have pinpointed to me are not, and are completely different editors. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to be calling people "ignorant". Online, we have no basis to make that judgment, and anyway, it doesn't matter, since editors are not required to have any specialized knowledge in order to edit (and such knowledge, while helpful, is certainly not necessary). Believe me when I say: nobody cares how many books you've read or not read on a particular subject. There is a very simple way this works: everything in the body needs to be sourced, per WP:V. Everything in the infobox needs to be in the body. So if the body says "center", the infobox says "center", and if the body doesn't, then the infobox doesn't. As to whether XYZ party is "center-left" or "far-right" or "upside-down-middle" or whatever, that's a content dispute that should be resolved on the relevant article's talk page (and if that doesn't work, follow WP:DR procedures). If there's edit warring, take it to WP:ANEW. I'm not seeing anything that requires admin intervention here. Levivich 15:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Account recovery

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 there!

I've lost my password and do not have access any more to the associated mailbox. So, as stated here : Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_my_password?, I have a secret key that you can find here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:Heddryin/Stats&action=edit at the bottom of the page. I of course still have the original text to get the SHA-512 key. French admins can't help, but it seems you could.

How shall I send you the text to prove I'm the account owner?

Best regards,
Heddryin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.164.143.51 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please contact cawikimedia.org via e-mail. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now fixed the instructions at the linked help page to include this advice, as administrators of the English Wikipedia can also only redirect you to this address. There is no way for an administrator to restore access to your account; the Trust and Safety team is needed for such cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer! I just sent the mail. Best regards,
Heddryin 2A01:E0A:95B:7790:5C5B:FC1C:57D3:B678 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries and all the best. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Please protect Omicron

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.

---

• Omicron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Temporary semi-protection: persistent IP and new users vandalism due to emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and after expiry of protection vandalism has resumed. Already asked at WP:RfPP yesterday but no response and disruption is still going. Thank you 2402:3A80:6C1:96A:9464:D5D3:4371:B576 (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for two weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User safeguarding controversial web page?

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

---

Hello, I have no specific issue to report at this time.

I am currently involved in a Talk page where a user has continuously misinterpreted the things I've said and then put words in my mouth and accused me of bias. There is also a mild condescension to their tone. In our conversation thus far, they have also espoused some rather... challenging logic... alongside suggestions to paint the topic of the page in a more positive light; currently the topic of the page covers a group that has a somewhat negative public reputation. I am still assuming they are broadly acting in good faith, and their misinterpretation of my words is caused by a genuine confusion over the point I am making, and not them "sealioning" me. But there has already been an extensive back and forth and any attempt I make to clarify my position seems to be misconstrued, and then my words are twisted (or they simply put words in my mouth I did not say). After, they have used those straw man insinuations to both avoid my editorial position on the matter of the content, and ignore the clarification I've tried to raise.

I am a bit exasperated and also do not wish to waste much more of my time on this. Looking at the Talk page, I can also see this user is the first to jump on users proposing a particular article be added to the page's "Controversies" section. Should they override my position, it will make it the third time they have shot down the same suggested addition to the page. I am just looking to confirm what my options are should the situation need resolution, and how to handle not only the content issue (which I believe would use the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard), but also how to judge if an editor is acting outside the expected code of conduct to the point that I should bother to raise it as an issue?

Thank you for any clarifications. Crawdaunt (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You are requited to notify the editor about whom you're complaining, and it would help if you identified them and the talkpage in question - vague allusions are not useful. I've done that for you - it's Banedon (talk · contribs), and the talkpage is Talk:MDPI. I've notified Banedon. Since there is no specific issue to report, this isn't a useful place to complain. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

As far as your apparent question - you can solicit another opinion at WP:3O, or if you have an intractable dispute (which does not seem to be the case here, at least not right now), then WP:DR. Simply disagreeing with you or citing policy does not make someone disruptive, which is what you're hinting at with the sealioning accusation. I note that sections on controversies and criticism are generally deprecated as coatracks for everything bad that someone wants to hang on a subject Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion Thanks for the response. I will confirm the issue refers to Banedon, and the article Talk:MDPI. I did not wish to begin an official complaint, as I am still assuming they are acting in good faith, and I did not assume I was 100% in the right. I was hoping for advice on what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate editorial behaviour requiring an external mediator for resolution. It has been frustrating to attempt to answer their questions only to be peppered with accusations while only getting further away from the issue at hand. I agree that controversy sections can become a host for content that paints the topic of the page in a negative light. I actually agree with Banedon that the structure of the page could use a re-write to better organize the topics discussed and make the controversy aspect less of an overloaded coatrack.

I have specifically been arguing in favour of adding reference to a controversy ongoing since August 2021, which is not necessarily one where the publisher is in the wrong (for a given position). It is the third time a user has visited the page believing it to be worth mention. My position is that it is a controversy that got a fair amount of attention and even a public rebuttal from the publisher MDPI, and thus important enough to merit inclusion. My edit mentions the one thing that the controversial article seems indisputably correct on (very high self-citation rate within MDPI journals), as the publisher MDPI's rebuttal also provides data that supports this claim. Crawdaunt (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Content disputes are not dealt with at AN or ANI. Please seek resolution at the venues I've mentioned, or simply discuss with Banedon. Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 28 November 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.

Mass killings under communist regimes content resolution

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.

---

• Mass killings under communist regimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At the beginning of November, a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard mediation began. (I mentioned this here at WP:AN at the time.) The editors, and I acting as moderator, understood that this DRN could take a few months, rather than the usual two to three weeks. The discussion has been extensive. I do not want to comment on whether it has made progress, except that we understand somewhat better (somewhat) what the different viewpoints are. Another editor, not a participant in the DRN, has now nominated the article for deletion. One of the participants in the DRN has asked that the AFD be suspended to see if the DRN improves the article. My understanding is that an AFD takes precedence over other forms of content resolution, so that I have instead suspended the DRN. I don't think that the nominator should have to wait for three months, and so I think that the DRN participants can wait one to three weeks to see if the article continues to exist, and can take into account any conclusions from the AFD if the article is kept. Given the complexity of the issues being discussed, I don't think that a Heymann close will happen. Either the article should be kept, more or less as is, and then improved at DRN, or the article should be deleted. If it is deleted, there may be other ideas as to articles to take its place.

I don't think that any new administrative action is needed. I don't think that any of the editors are being disruptive. In seven days, the needed administrative action will be a close or a relist. I would like to know whether my understanding is correct that the AFD takes precedence over other content resolution mechanisms. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I see no reason why the two processes cannot continue concurrently. If the article is deleted, then other discussions might be moot, but I think this is the fourth bite at the apple. That in itself is a bit unusual. What I truly do not understand is why this matter needs to be discussed at WP:AN. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Cullen, I think RMC was very clear why he brought it here: he is seeking the input of administrators or other experienced editors on the topic I would like to know whether my understanding is correct that the AFD takes precedence over other content resolution mechanisms. --JBL (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. What I thought was unusual was that one editor asked that the AFD be suspended to allow the DRN to be completed (but the DRN may spawn one or more RFCs, and the DRN may take a few months). I am also asking for an administrator to take a quick look at the AFD to see whether, in their opinion, anyone needs to be warned. The back-and-forth exchanges are becoming too long, difficult to read. I wasn't asking for discussion so much as for some admin attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• As the AfD is proceeding and seems likely to run to its conclusion at this point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination), and could probably benefit from more admin attention; IPs appear to be going ham on the AfD talk page. Depending on how the discussion proceeds, a panel close might be in order due to the volume of responses and the extent that they are largely talking past each other. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Do we know who organized the external canvassing?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  I mean if Joel Abbott has a known Wikipedia account it probably needs to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not the Bee (the "news" arm of The Babylon Bee) posted an article about it, which could easily be interpreted as a call-to-arms. clpo13_(talk) 18:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  There was also apparently a thread on 4chan, though I cannot find a link atm. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  Noting that this has now drawn Reddit's attention, I'd like to reiterate my call for a panel close, because now not only is the discussion a sprawling mess, it will be subject to significant scrutiny from readers not familiar with Wikipedia P&G. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  Larry Sanger has also weighed in on twitter. Schazjmd (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• After an IP suggested that the opponent thinks their opponents like genocides, I semiprotected the page and hatted the personal attack. It is midnight in my time zone, and I will not be able to read anything for the next 8 hours. If any administrator thinks I have overreacted please just remove the protection. I need to disengage from that page anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Any attempt to bring civility to proceedings would be welcome. ~ cygnis insignis 15:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC-in-question is heading towards a keep verdict. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the massive offsite canvassing generated by among others, Fox News, Larry Sanger and Reddit, who, by and large, are voting for keep, I support Rosguill's call for a panel close to properly assess the consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this is going to require a panel verdict it's far too contentious for a single person close and I'd be super wary of a WP:SNOW close of a discussion that has attracted what seems like pro-keep canvassing. Although I note that it only opened 2 days ago so we can probably wait. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• What is the likelihood that a closer (single person or panel) will go through the entire discussion on that page? Will it be helpful to let that AfD grow longer? I think we might need a different sort of mechanism to deal with this beast. Consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Before the RfC happened, there was a long and moderated discussion (Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion) that broke down a big issue into smaller, more easily understandable, chunks. Something similar might be needed here.VR _talk 23:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it's highly likely. Levivich 01:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I've been following this discussion since it started at DRN. At this point I'm not sure that makes me more qualified or less qualified to be on the panel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• I have been a part of a panel close for an AfD before so I don't think it's inappropriate in all situations. But I do want to note that on its own a sprawling discussion can just mean that a panel of admins spend time a lot of time reading it and writing a closing statment, rather than one. From my quick read of the situation it's sprawling but not requiring such nuance that it needs a panel to close for legitimacy. Could a single admin close get appealed to DRV? Sure. Would a panel close make an appeal less likely? Maybe. But maybe not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  I spent a slug of time reading through the AfD yesterday, and I tend to agree. Now, it's true that I'm a fairly inexperienced editor, and your world frightens and confuses me. Ladies and gentleman, I'm just a simple caveman, but it's pretty clear that, even after ignoring obvious canvassing and cutting keeps in half on top of that, it's still either keep or no consensus. I get that it's probably going to end up going to DRV to reach the same result with even more time wasted if three admins with half a million combined edits and 25 years of experience don't do a panel close. At least at DRV it'll be the same six people that went back and forth at the AfD wasting their time before the inevitable endorse, rather than wasting the time of a team of admins. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Given the coverage off-wiki, I'd think it'd be better to have a panel in this instance as a single closer may become a focus of attention. Although I do agree that a single closer could competently do it, and that a single closer would save a lot of time, I wouldn't ask any one volunteer to put themselves on the spot like this. (A panel can mean one person writes it and others endorse it, in my opinion.) Levivich 02:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  My impression is than, in part due to off-wiki canvassing, we have a situation when a simple counting of votes gives an overwhelming keep, whereas once one starts looking at the arguments, the keep is not so overwhelming (it might be still keep, but definitely not snow keep). In this situation, a single administrator who would come up with any close but keep (even conditional keep or whatever) would be with a certainty accused in a supervote, the article would go to DRV, and, depending on some circumstances, the admin can be taken to ArbCom (unlikely to be desysopped just for this close, but still not an extremely pleasant situation). The panel is unlikely to be accused in a supervote, and thus has a bit more freedom to close the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• If not necessary, I can't see how a panel would hurt. Either way, the close is going to be endlessly re-litigated at DRV etc., no doubt about it.

Another question is when to close it. The discussion started on the 22nd and, although it wasn't logged until the 25th, with more than 100 !votes so far and the off-wiki canvassing only getting worse, I can't see how letting it run another three days is going to help anyone. I think we should put {{Closing}} on it tomorrow and assemble a panel. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree, there is no need to wait for eight extra days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  A panel hurts because it sucks of volunteer time. A panel hurts because it starts to create an expectation that certain kinds of discussions need panel closes and then the perceived need for that expands. In general I pushback against the idea that we need panels, except in extraordinary circumstances, and despite the volume of participation I don't think this is it. In fact if we think it's inevitably headed towards DRV I would suggest that means a panel is worse because we will have used up multiple admins time (even if 1 writes the close, all need to completely read that massive discussion to make sure they endorse it) with no actual increase in legitimacy. We spend more time now and we don't save any down the road. As for how long to let it run, in most circumstances I would suggest doing 7 days from logging but the volume of participation means that if consensus can be found 168 hours after nomination there's not a lot of process benefit to extending it a few more days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oh wow, yikes, that's an AfD alright. My two cents, it's not possible to tell who was canvassed there and who wasn't so rather than wasting time on it, just close it as no consensus and be done with it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe create an entirely new type of closure outcome: FUBAR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I was mistaken when I said that I did not think any further administrative action would be necessary. And User:Cullen328 wondered why I posted here at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, my comment was six days ago, this AfD has been lighting up my watchlist ever since, and The Signpost is now reporting that it is the most wordy AfD in the history of our project. Things have changed, so if you interpreted my comment as a criticism, I apologize. You were correct to bring the issue here, and in retrospect, I was wrong for questioning you for doing so. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Cullen328 - I did not take it as a criticism. In my comment above, I was teasing both you and me because we both underestimated the magnitude of the AFD. I thought that no further admin action beyond my mention of it was in order. Anyway, it is a train wreck that continues to build up because the track is still blocked and more trains keep plowing into the wreckage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, you are so level-headed and objective that I grant you permission to tease me whenever you want. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't canvassed. I found out about the AfD-in-question, via this very ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW: The RFC has made it onto the Signpost. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Another suggestion, I close it. ~ cygnis insignis 08:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What, you want to close a deletion discussion you started? Uhm, no thanks. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• One side note regarding canvassing and majority votes as whole. One of important sources cited in the article which we discuss is Michael Mann, who coined the term "classicide". Ironically, his book is not about Communism. Its title is "Dark side of democracy", and his conclusion is that many genocides, such as Rwandian genocide, were a result of democratic transformations in those countries. And that is an additional reminder that democracy is not a holy cow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

So, panel close or no?

Given that it's been seven days, I've put the {{closing}} template on the page. I favour a panel close but not everybody above and elsewhere was in favour. Are there any volunteers/objections to a panel/objections to me as a closer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm more convinced of the need for a panel after the Signpost article and growing off-wiki coverage, if only so the one person isn't stuck with all the heat afterwards. So I'll volunteer to join you... @Rosguill and Ymblanter: maybe you want to make it three? – Joe (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about the heat. Let'em throw any aspersions, personal attacks & so on, at me. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus sounds ok to me. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I do have a few notes on the AfD I could share, so I could maybe contribute something to the panel. Though, I'm a bit worried about the fact that OpIndia would likely be watching the close, since they've doxxed editors before. I'm also not an admin, so I might not be a great fit. Invalid^OS_talk 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright, on second thought, I'm not doing this. It'd probably cause me too much anxiety. Invalid^OS_talk 15:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Whereas I did not !vote and did not offer my opinion at the AfD, I edited it, and I guess this would make me involved at least for some people. I think I would better miss this one, will be happy to help next time.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, if you'd like another set of eyeballs with it, I'd be happy to help, though it would probably be a good idea to have an odd number just in case of impasse. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

So it seems like the candidates are me, Joe Roe, Rosguill and Seraphimblade. Emailing the users involved so that we can begin a conversation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:@Joe Roe:@Rosguill:@Seraphimblade: When do the admins expect to come to a decision? X-Editor (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

X-Editor, the Europeans among us are turning in for the night now; my sense is that after a few back and forth emails we're pretty close to coming to a consensus as to what the close bold text and framing should be, but may take some time to draft a full statement that is accessible and informative to a non-editor audience. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Some editors would also appreciate a statement that is accessible and informative with any takeaways or conclusions for editors who are trying to improve the article. Thank you in advance for closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that [making it clear for people not versed in Wikipedia jargon, custom and practice] been a key point in drafting the close and part of the reason why it's not up yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, the editors in the DRN do know the Wikipedia jargon, so I may provide my own summary of the close for them in restarting the DRN. I think that the DRN will run for less than a week before I submit an RFC, and may put it back on hold while the RFC runs. At the end of that time, I may be back to ask for another closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have you and the other admins at least reached a general conclusion on the fate of the article? X-Editor (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been in multiple closing panels in my life, and I do not think any of those panels was able to come to a conclusion sooner than several days, one week is pretty typical.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Close has now been implemented. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Now this AN report can be closed. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 1 December 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.

Uploads by sockpuppet of WMF-banner user

Uploads by Meganesia, a sockpuppet of WMF-banner user King kong92, still remain, including potential non-free ones whose information may be inadequate. I asked one admin what to do with them (diff). She suggested that I tag them with "db-g5", which I did on other uploads, but I figured that's a lot of work. Here I am posting this here. If AN isn't suitable, then either simply tag with "db-g5" or FFD then. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, all deleted under G5 -FASTILY 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Fastily. Found out there may be others more, telling from upload logs. George Ho (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I left a few where the sock was not the only substantial contributor; concerns regarding these should be raised at FfD. The remaining blue links represent files transferred to Commons, and any concerns regarding these may be raised via DR -FASTILY 03:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Massive CfD backlog

WP:CfD now has 164 old discussions: 114 from November, 49 from October, and this months-stale CfD originally filed in July that received minimal participation despite two relists, and which I'd recommend a close as no consensus. Evidently, we need a longer-term solution for this recurring problem. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A long-term solution would be removing categories in favor of structured data, but I am afraid this community is not even prepared to allow for possibility of this ever happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm against anything on Wikipedia that is structured. What is "structured data"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a mystery. I'm only familiar with the term from c:Commons:Structured data. clpo13_(talk) 19:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Structured data is not the best implementation of the idea, and has a number of serious drawbacks, but it gives at least some impression. (Note that the situation with categories on Commons is much worse than here: They are supposed to be useful for finding images, and most of them are completely useless for this purpose).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree with such a move, and indeed would love to spend all my time crusading in support of it were it not for all the other stuff I'm doing. Categories, from a holistic point of view, were perhaps originally fine; but they've since been used sometimes for purposes better suited to structured data. Spitballing: there are "categories better off as structured data" and "categories better off as lists/outlines" (probably some more kinds of categories that I'm missing, please tell me). The former (e.g. Category:21st-century American male opera singers – why?) should be structured data, and for the latter, we should devise something so that articles appearing in lists/outlines may have a link to those lists/outlines at the bottom, where the categories used to be. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Moving to structured data likely wouldn't help, as Wikidata is even more unkempt than English Wikipedia categories. For example, they have an 11-month backlog at Wikidata:Requests for deletions, and a 3 year backlog at d:Wikidata:Properties for deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It does not even necessarily have to be on Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Can non-admins do anything useful in closing CFDs (other than the non-controversial no-action-required closes)? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally, CfD accepts non-admin "delete" and "merge" closes as long as the non-admin empties the deleted/merged category and tags it with {{db-xfd}} themselves. Only non-admins with the page mover bit can do "rename" closures, since that right is required to move a category page in the first place. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Iota and Jot

Because of the recent Signpost article about AfD I had a look at the 2006 AfD for esoteric programming languages, and noticed that Iota and Jot had been closed as delete but had never been actually deleted -- the log entry is in error on the talk page. I'm not quite sure what should be done about it (if anything) -- a procedural response seems inappropriate after a 15-year lag -- but figured someone here might know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If I read the history correctly, it was first deleted after being part of a large summary AfD, then that deletion was overturned at DRV, then it was relisted in a new individual AfD, and that was closed as "no consensus", so there isn't really a procedural anomaly as far as I can tell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the talk page history incorrect then? I only saw one AFD listed. Or would the mass nomination not typically be listed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You're talking about 2006. Twinkle didn't exist. Friendly might have, which predates it. This was a month after I started. Back then, AFDs and such were often done manually. Doesn't matter that it started as a multiple, it was sent to it's own and the result is published on the talk page, which is more than most AFDs in that era. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate snow close of Afd by non-admin User:RandomCanadian

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6. It is far too early for a non-admin snow close, a clear consensus has not emerged, many of the "votes" are by IPs or simply "per (user)" and there are a several editors arguing for a merge. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to contest an AfD closure, deletion review is the place for it. There's nothing for AN to do here. (I'm not too fond of the closure – "nearly a 2-1 ratio" is definitely not what the snowball clause is referring to – but it's really quite unlikely that further discussion will result in anything other than the same "keep" result.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

But I'm not contesting a deletion, I'm contesting an inappropriate closure. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:DRV is a two way street you can contest keeps as well. Amortias (T)(C) 00:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A keep doesn't preclude a merge. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 6 December 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.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SecretName101

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 administrators" 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

SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

an indefinite topic ban from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Threats being made to me

Administrator imposing the sanction

El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[26]

Statement by SecretName101

I have, over the course of my topic ban, made thousands of edits focusing on dead-subjects and other non-BLP articles, creating several of rather high-quality (such as Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson). I have greatly enhanced a number of articles on deceased subjects. I believe that my edits should demonstrate that I am an editor who continues to make edits of value, and that I am not a threat to the project. I will practice better judgement, and will be cautious about any new articles that lean negative, and will first submit any such articles for review as drafts before publication.

I had no intent of malfeasance in the article that triggered this ban. If anyone had asked me if I regretted it or was sorry, I would have immediately apologized. But instead of asking me to apologize, others jumped to put me on the defense by wrongly accusing me of having had a malicious intent behind my creation of that article, and being politically motivated.

I had believed, in creating the article, that the subject was a notable-enough figure for an article. When I see an individual who has notability, but no article, I often have the impulse to remedy this. This same impulse has resulted in some of my best articles.

I wrote the (stub/start-type) article on what information was readily available on the subject. Much of that happened to skew negative, which is why the article ended up skewing negative. However, I made a poor decision in publishing the article directly, rather than submitting it for review. I should have recognized that a negative-skewing article on a marginally notable individual at least needed a second set of eyes before publication.

I see errant choices in writing the article (such as attempting to emulate the lead style that I had seen often used for politicians with criminal records), that led to an overemphasis of the negative.

I apologize for any face that I may have cost the project. SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El C

SecretName101, I'm sorry, though it ticks some of the boxes, I find your appeal too vague, with a WP:NOTTHEM sandwiched in the middle. To recap: Bill Stevenson, Jill Biden's former husband, experienced legal troubles of a criminal nature between the years of 1982-1986, resulting in a couple of convictions and suspended sentences. Four years, then, yet ~70 percent of SecretName101's article (AfD) was dedicated to these events, and whose lead sentence read: William W. Stevenson III is an American businessman and convicted fraudster (admins-only).

It just feels like this appeal sidetracks/avoids this obvious crux — not merely "negative" but overwhelmingly so. Also, SecretName101, you mention politicians with criminal records as having served as a sort of template for you, but the article didn't mention that Bill Stevenson was at any point a politician — politician as in having been entrusted with the authority of government at some point, holding office, etc. Vocally supporting Trump and opposing Biden obviously wouldn't make him one.

Personally, I think a better template would be Martha Stewart whose lead sentence descriptor doesn't call her a 'convicted felon,' nor is her conviction and incarceration mentioned in the rest of the first paragraph. The second paragraph is, however, devoted to it and its subsequent impact. Which makes sense to me. Finally, the problem for me is also that SecretName101, at times, responded to the dispute in a troubling and disconcerting way, like, reading discrimination against neurodivergent persons where there was none (diff). So, for me, this appeal ultimately falls short. El_C 01:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just noting the new section that SecretName101 just added to my talk page: User_talk:El_C#Disappointing_of_you. It came across as confusing and a bit hostile to me (towards me), but whatever, I don't see a need to press the matter further beyond noting it here. That said, I'm not sure why SecretName101 still keeps splitting discussions rather than stick to a venue. Oh well. El_C 03:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, a user subject to WP:ACDS may appeal their sanction either here at WP:AN or WP:AE or WP:ARCA (or should I say ARCA with love). El_C 03:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, paragraph breaks = El_C 04:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor Yngvadottir

I consider myself involved here since I entered the AN/I discussion to suggest the Stevenson article should be deleted. I did not see the AfD in time to participate, but would have argued for deletion there; I had hoped it could be deleted under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and therefore found the speedy deletion appropriate, although the paper was not 100% an attack. If the AfD had continued to run, I planned to research the college bar and draft a rewrite as an article on that topic, to be considered as an alternative, but I am relieved I did not have to attempt to meet WP:N on what appears to have been an only locally notable joint with overtones of WP:NOTINHERITED as a rock venue.

I'm posting here because SecretName101's appeal is supported by a claim of excellent editing focused on dead people, and I haven't been impressed with the quality of their work that I've run into recently. In late November, they made a string of edits expanding Richard H. Austin. This work shows the heavy reliance on newspapers.com that I recall from the sourcing of the Stevenson article. Unlike SecretName101, I don't have a subscription, so I can't check the accuracy of their use of these sources, but although in that edit they did add Austin's run for mayor of Detroit, they failed to give any sense of the man's achievements, partly because they used only spot news and missed several sources reviewing his life and career (including an AP obituary), and the entirety of his legacy including a Lansing government building renamed for him that dominates a simple search; the "Death and legacy" section contained nothing but his death, with an unreferenced cause of death—I would have thought both citing the cause of death and finding something about the legacy would have been obvious steps in search after deciding to expand the article. As an illustration of the result of a search beyond spot news, and full use of available sources, here's my edit (I apologize for the fact it's all one edit; and for full disclosure I'll also note that I researched his loss in 1994, and it was too sad and I couldn't find a sufficiently dispassionate source, like a reliable report of the actual percentage, so I didn't add anything on that.) One thing SecretName101 did do is add a link to 1969 Detroit mayoral election, but they did not think to look for and link 1976 United States Senate election in Michigan and 1994 Michigan Secretary of State election. It's probably the 1969 Detroit mayoral election article that brought them to the Richard H. Austin article; they created it a day or two earlier. This is their final version of that article. Again, it's heavily reliant on newspapers.com (with the odd effect that whereas most of the refs have newspapers.com as the source website and the newspaper in question unitalicized, as publisher, the reference to the New York Times, since it's from the NYT's own website, has the newspaper italicized, but I may be being over-sensitive there, I work hard to suborn the citation templates to give full credit to reporters and newspapers as well as wire services where applicable, note original dates as well as revised dates, and so on). I think this is the reason for the article being a bit unintegrated, with short, choppy paragraphs and elements such as the race question not put together in a coherent narrative. I tried to make it better in my edit. I think SecretName101 makes diligent use of their newspapers.com subscription, but myopically, not thinking enough about making a coherent article that covers the topic, and as a result they didn't much improve our article on Richard H. Austin, which was pretty shabby when they started working on it, so I appreciate their effort ... but they need to look at the big picture and not just put in whatever their search on newspapers.com turns up as top results, and that appears to have been a significant part of the problem in the Stevenson article.

Their recent editing shows diligence, but I don't think it shows the awareness of context or the depth and breadth of research to indicate they won't go down a news bulletin rabbit hole on another BLP if the restriction is lifted. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SecretName101

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.

Comment by GoodDay

Shouldn't this be held at WP:ARCA? -- GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I see, cool. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by User:力

I'm not convinced BLP issues will not reoccur, particularly on article creations. Also, SecretName101 complaining You also have reignited a micro aggression towards me on El C's talk page in response to the comments here speaks for itself. However, perhaps a partial measure is appropriate - changing the sanction to merely preventing the creation of BLP articles. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by SecretName101

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• As I said at the original ANI, I don't think someone who puts together an article which is an obvious coatrack for an attack on the US President, and who sources said BLP violation using this website (sample quote "the man with dementia in the White House") should be anywhere near BLPs. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Kite and Yngvadottir above; there are just too many red flags to lift the TBAN at this time. Miniapolis 00:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the above and see nothing in the appeal to believe that removing the topic ban would have a good outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this appeal comes much too soon, and so I must oppose. This editor seems to think that a BLP of a person who was married half a century ago to someone who later married a famous politician is somehow comparable to a BLP of a politician. That, in itself, is deeply troubling, and the appeal does not address that issue. The early versions of the article are an obvious coatrack to publicize a minor figure at the outermost periphery of the Biden orbit, complete with salacious and unverified gossip. I want to see a much longer history of uncontentious edits. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 5 December 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.

About Pulse Hobart and Draft:Pulse Hobart

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

---

Hi all,

Somehow the creation of this now this WP:DRAFTIFY-'d article has been attributed to me in articlespace

I must admit I am puzzled how this happened.

• The (now) draft was created 18:44, November 26, 2021‎
• I added some comments to its (former) articlespace version 19:04, November 26, 2021‎

If the draft is accepted, its creation will be incorrectly attributed to me, instead of Kiwiradio

If the draft is not accepted, its creation will be incorrectly attributed to me, instead of Kiwiradio

What should the best outcome here? A WP:MERGE? Some other resolution?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the article was moved to draft space without leaving a redirect while you were editing, so when you then saved the article a new version was created. I think the histories need to be merged. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I merged the histories, should be good now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:27, 4 December 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 – December 2021

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

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

IP vandalizing tons of Weather articles.

Please block User talk:2603:6080:EA40:7D9:611A:7DAF:F32E:C19E ASAP as they are vandalizing tons of weather articles. I have reverted at least 9 vandalizations and they are continuing. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Conduct of David Eppstein

David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A Wikipedia administrstor has been uncivil to other editors saying Are you totally illiterate or just willfully obtuse here. Later he added unveriafable content first saying I can't find that claim in the source he added here and then saying that another source: strongly implied exactly what I said here. And now he edit wars the result of the AFD here. Infinity Knight (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 4 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Please notify them about this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Knight failed to nofify me before someone else got there. The issue centers around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Si.427, which had a very dubious close by User:Randykitty saying to redirect to Plimpton 322 despite the redirect target not containing any content about Si.427, clear consensus against merging any of the deleted content there, and only one comment suggesting a non-merge redirect. Subsequent discussion on Talk:Si.427 identified better redirect targets where Si.427 was already mentioned, including both Istanbul Archaeology Museums (my suggestion) and the eventual redirect target from that discussion, Sippar. Infinity Knight and another fringe-pusher from the same discussion, SelfStudier, have pointedly refused to go along with the delete close and the later retarget of the redirect, and continue to try to push fringe content about Si.427 into Plimpton 322 and to try to justify that content by redirecting Si.427 there (where it is still not mentioned). I reverted one such attempt by SelfStudier some three weeks ago and another one today, and somehow these three-weeks-apart edits are called edit-warring and brought here with much older diffs brought in as one-sided evidence that the debate was at times heated. I think the history, the AfD discussion, and the Si.427 talk page discussion speak for themselves and that trying to turn this into a user-behavior issue against me is just an attempt at setting aside any opposition to their continued fringe-pushing. In any case as an WP:INVOLVED editor on this topic I have taken no administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The forceful comments in question were made about a month and a half ago, so this dispute seems pretty stale. That being said, David Eppstein, surely you can choose better words to express your disagreement. C'mon. Cullen328 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Trout accepted. The quoted text above has been separated from its context (reacting to a previous edit summary that claimed the exact opposite of the truth about what a disputed source contained) but didn't really add anything but heat to the omitted context, and could better have been cut instead of posted. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight. I don't think any action can be taken here. If you wish to re-target the redirect, I suggest you begin a discussion at WP:RFD. DrKay (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, a little bit of tact will go a long way towards a productive discussion, however the last diff edit comment dated 00:47, 4 December 2021 is not perfect either. The more serious issue is pushing unverifiable content. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Pushing"? Aren't we talking about one edit? That was then discussed? – Joe (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Diff for "pushing". Is unrelated source that strongly implied exactly what I said is enough? Infinity Knight (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this particular topic but have interacted with David Eppstein intermittently for nearly 15 years. He is an editor of exceptional integrity. If he did become impatient, which we all do from time to time, I am sure he meant no ill-will. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wholly agree. Impatience is hardly the same as wilful personal attack. A trout has already been acknowledged and accepted. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have got a third reminder to donate. Wrong! My bank paid you on 28November. Please tighten up your admin reminder process

Umm yes, not nice to receive reminders in error - and even after logging in I couldn't see how to relay this info to wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebs46 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Geebs46: Your donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation. The English Wikipedia editing community and its administrators have no control over any reminders. Please direct any questions to donate@wikimedia.org. – Joe (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Geebs46: You can opt out of seeing donation banners in your preferences. This will only be effective while you are logged in. Rummskartoffel 15:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dubious content in Philippines–Ukraine relations

I've reverted that page a couple of times but the fact that no sysop has stepped in makes me think that I'm in the wrong there. Can someone please have a look? Thanks in advance. --Fytcha (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Xavierdmr has been indef blocked. Hopefully that fixes the problem. Fences&Windows 22:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Bipin Rawat

Please put semi protection. RFPP request pending. Large amount of vandalism on a high visibility page. Venkat TL (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:  Done, thanks. I went with three days, I hope things will have quieted down by then. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response. Hope so. Venkat TL (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. If you are an administrator, you may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if an administrator wishes to self-assign they may do so now. When the change goes live, I will note it here. Additionally, there is some agreement among those discussing implementation to mass message admins a version of this message. I will be doing so soon and including a link to this thread for questions/discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTS should probably be updated to reflect this change. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well there's a page I didn't know existed. Looks like Joe has updated it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

For some reason, the notice that went out didn't have your username on it. So, I was left wondering who or what committee was sending out this news. But it directs people here so I found out. Looks like another discussion I heard about after it was over! This should probably be added to the next Admin's Newsletter for (oh, my) January. 2022, here already. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz yeah I intentionally signed it with five tildes. That said, if you edit there is an html comment showing who sent an MMS if you're ever curious. As for the newsletter I believe someone Tol already took care of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been (re)-granted it at WP:PERM/A, there may be others like me who don't feel comfortable self-assigning, so I would recommend that that page be given a little extra attention as there may be an elevated volume of requests related to sysops. Unless, of course, there's not many besides me with qualms about self-assigning. Hog Farm _Talk 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will note that I granted it to people on this list of admins who had autopatrol before +sysop who hadn't already self-granted. I figured you and Eddie would not be the only two reluctant to self-grant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I had no qualms at all about self-granting this, and I see that many others on my watchlist also did not. I'd imagine that most of us, and especially Hog Farm, are competent enough at writing articles that this really isn't controversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also point out that for all current sysops, the community already considered and granted the flag as part of the toolkit, and the discussion doesn't show that the community has lost that trust. I view this change as similar to how we handle edit filter manager for sysops. It's a powerful tool that some people want and some people don't. Not granting by default but letting admins self-assign lets sysops customize their toolkit to fit their needs. If you think you need it, grant it, if you don't want it, don't; I don't think the considerations need to be more complicated than that. Fro myself, I plan to use it similar to a m:flood flag. If I'm going to be making a ton of project pages or doing a lot of housekeeping, I'll add autopatrolled so that I don't flood the NPQ with junk. But if I'm going to be creating a bunch of biography stubs or redirect, I would actually appreciate the second set of eyes as it could help point out areas for further improvement or catch silly mistakes I might have missed. I understand why some might be hesitant to self-grant, but if the community didn't trust admins to grant it, we wouldn't have kept self-assignment as an option. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled should exist solely to mitigate the impact of high-volume article creation on the NPP process, but there's been an unfortunate tendency to see it as just a badge of honour for "trusted" users. We constantly try to explain this to people at WP:PERM/A, but it has always felt a little hypocritical with it being automatically given to admins. So I'm glad that I no longer have autopatrolled, and while the vast majority of admins can of course be trusted with the right, if you choose not to give it to yourself, I think that sets a good example: having another person check your edits is normal in every other area of the project and nothing to worry about. Unless you're creating multiple articles a week or more, you will not have a noticeable effect on the size of the NPP backlog. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The opposite is true, of course, if you know that you do, in fact, make a lot of pages, it's a good example to have the perm. Whether you want another administrator to grant it, or self-assigning as if you are already an admin, then you have an RfA that suggests the community does agree with you having that perm. FWIW, I always thought autopatrolled isn't a big deal. It shines pretty brightly if an experienced editor that made admin would make poor creations, especially if they have been given a perm that shows we trust them to do exactly that. There is certainly admins that don't make articles, who wouldn't want the tool, which is fine. It's pretty dependant on how many you make, whether it makes sense to have it. Even experienced editors who make an article every blue moon is unlikely to need the perm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The standard for patrolled is just "It's not vandalism" and "It shouldn't be speedy deleted for some reason", right? It kinda shocks me that we can't trust administrators to be able to do this. Did the RFC introduce significant numbers of articles created by admins that should not have been considered to be patrolled? I've self-assigned the right. I don't see any reason that every admin shouldn't self-assign the right. --B (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@B: - IIRC, the two instances brought up were the Neelix situation with the thousands of useless redirects, and then the Carlossuarez46 arbcase, where an admin mass-created 10,000+ stubs based on a mistranslation of Iranian sources, suggested that there was nothing wrong with such behavior, and then rage quit and called everyone racist when a bulk-deletion request was opened at AN. Both are cases I guess where you could argue that being able to pull autopatrolled flag would have helped (it might have been able to defuse the Carlos situation before things wound up where they did), but you can probably also argue that both incidents indicated a temperament unsuited to adminship. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the bar is a bit higher than that - it's expected that newly created articles will be referenced, categorized, MOS compliant etc. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The File:NPP_flowchart.svg that many of us NPPs follow includes CSD check, copyright check, notability check, duplicate article check, title fixing, adding categories or tagging {{uncategorized}} or {{improve categories}}, tagging as stub if needed, adding maintenance tags, and adding WikiProject rating tags. Some would argue that all NPPs and autopatrolled folks should be following this checklist when creating articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If someone with autopatrol is needing to check their own work for COPYVIO or needing to apply tags then they're really not at a point where autopatrol is appropriate, in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

WRONG INFORMATION

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

---

I was just reading about Santiago Cabrera and his wife Anna Marcea. All references to Anna are as a he/man. ANNA is not a he. And it would be Wonderful if Someone at Wikiprojecttopics.org would CORRECT ALL REFERENCES TO ANNA. IT IS INSULTING TO HAVE INFORMATION WRONG AND MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO CORRECT IT. THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CA81:1310:A457:950D:F6C7:DAA (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I cant see any reference to his wife apart from one stating he's married and they have a son. 2601:602:CA81:1310:A457:950D:F6C7:DAA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) can you provide a link to where youve seen this as I cant see any evidence its here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(e/c)You are posting to the English Wikipedia. The referenced Wikiprojecttopics.org does not exist.

In the Santiago Cabrera article, Anna is never described as he/him. There is no Anna Marcea article.

Are you are the right website?

Are you at the right language?

Stop yelling, no one here is responsible for whatever errors you think you found.

Is this a troll, or just seriously confused? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Found what they were talking about [27]. They seem to be lost. This can be closed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:01, 8 December 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.

Cookie clearing and the autoblock system: block evasion potential?

While reading through the autoblock page out of boredom, I discovered a potential flaw - deleting cookies (which the autoblock feature depends on) allows one to bypass an autoblock entirely. Is there any way that administrators can deal with possible block evasion potential like this? And additionally, was this accounted for? 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's best not to think of blocks as a security measure; there are always ways around. The question is, how much effort will each vandal put into evading the block? If even (making up a number here) 30% never think to clear cookies, well that's 30% you don't have to deal with, and more free time to spend dealing with the higher-effort vandals. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletion of approved articles

Hello, I noticed there was a mass deletion of articles from User:Athaenara I worked on that went through the standard AfC process, and I'm confused what the reasoning behind that might be? As far as I can see, none of the deleted articles underwent the AfD process (and they met Wikipedia's notability guidelines). I also see drafts that I was actively trying to improve were deleted as well, and one was moved to a published article without me submitting for review:

Deleted articles (as of now, the list seems to be growing), which again went through the standard AfC process, were well established before my involvement, or weren't otherwise flagged before:

• Jacob Sartorius
• Smokeasac
• Salem Ilese
• All Things Go Fall Classic
• Corbu (band)
• Luc Van den Hove
• Jorge Pelicano (I wasn't even paid for this one + it was created at a Wikipedia hackathon with guidance).

Please help me understand how any of this is constructive for Wikipedia Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes (whatever "approved" actually means to you), I've been going through your contribs after reading your massive "paid for writing article [x]" listings on your user page. You may not have noticed that over half, literally dozens, were redirects to the Sartorius page. – Athaenara ✉ 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Athaenara I don't know what you mean by redirects to the Sartorius page? I properly disclosed using the Wikipedia template. I've been through this process before where I've been singled out for being a paid editor, but it was agreed that I would operate in this way of going through the proper channels (which I have). Again, I don't know how deleting these articles is helpful for the community + they were approved by other editors independent of myself. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's...not a deletion argument. Also, have you just been using the admin tools on your own to singlehandedly delete articles on your own whim? Without going through any of the actual deletion processes? You're not allowed to be both judge and jury when it comes to deleting things. Silverseren^C 21:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  The pages were deleted as G8 and/or G11, which is a proper deletion process (no idea whether it applied to these pages). --Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Are admins allowed to both tag and delete the same page entirely on their own? Because that seems massively inappropriate. Were the pages even tagged or did Athaenara just unilaterally delete them and just listed the G8 and G11 as reasons? Silverseren^C 21:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As has been prominently displayed on my user talk page for over a year, "ANY reliable administrator is free to reverse ANY administrative action I have taken, whether page protection, page deletion, user block, or anything else." – Athaenara ✉ 21:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Is that a yes on you unilaterally deleting the pages on your own? Did you even tag them first or just delete them and use the speedy deletion arguments in the log after the fact? Silverseren^C 21:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren: If it was applying a speedy deletion criterion, then yes: speedy deletions are meant to be "unilateral". That's why they are called "speedy". Any administrator can apply a CSD at any time, on their own initiative and in their own responsibility. That's the whole point of having "speedy" criteria. (Just like Ymblanter above: I haven't checked whether those criteria were applied properly here; just commenting on the process as such.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a problem. As is shown here, such as with the now restored Jacob Sartorius, that is not at all promotional and looks like a normal article. Why isn't there any oversight for deletion? I always thought someone else had to be involved in the tagging and couldn't just delete on their own accord. The only exception that would make sense are copyvios. But, otherwise, an admin could just go around deleting a ton of articles and have no oversight over their actions if the creators of the articles don't speak up as they did here. Silverseren^C 21:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I spend much of the day on CSD pages, Silver seren and I've found that admin behavior here varies. Admins who don't work much with pages tagged for speedy deletion usually tag but don't delete. Admins who regularly patrol CSD categories, like Athaenara and myself, will delete pages without tagging since we are so familiar with the criteria. For example, I delete hundreds of stale drafts each day and it seems counter-productive to me to tag all of these pages and then have a separate admin do the deletion when the criteria are clearly met when I'd do the tagging. However, if I have any questions about my judgement, usually with G11s and A7s, I will tag the pages and let another admin evaluate whether I made the right call.

My concern is not whether admins go straight to deletion rather than tagging but I've found that admins who delete will sometimes not notify the page creator of the deletion. That is my primary concern as I don't think this step should ever be skipped. And I've noticed that skipping the notification step has to do with the method of page deletion the admin uses...those admins who use the drop down Page menu don't post notices while those who use Twinkle to delete pages do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Stale drafts are their own separate topic, however, and much more standardized of an action regardless of the articles in question. That's quite different from going out of one's way to attempt to delete all the content an editor has ever been involved in and directly stating that the reason of doing so was because of a negative bias against the editor in question because of their transparency about their paid editing. I do fully agree on the notification end of things, as that doesn't appear to have been done. Not even for the original creators for articles like Sartorius. Silverseren^C 01:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is allowed. Any admin can delete something under the CSD criteria (the policy says 'at their discretion'), they just note that in the log entry. There's no requirement that any page be tagged in advance. The templates are just a way for non-admins to draw attention to stuff that ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the deleted history of Jacob Sartorius as well as the pages that Athaenara linked in the edit summary for the page, I see clear evidence that the page has repeatedly been edited by both properly disclosed and UPE editors. Given the amount of different editors that have contributed to the article, and that its copy is reasonably neutral as of its last revision, I'm going to go ahead and restore it, with no prejudice to further discussion on the talk page, at AfD, COIN, etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Smokeasac, however, is much more flimsy and is not a great look coming from a paid editor. I probably wouldn't have unilaterally G11'd it myself, but I'm disinclined to restore it unless there's a consensus that we need more process here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Since at least one has been shown to completely not meet the claimed speedy deletion requirements, I think all of them should be restored and then nominated at AfD if there is indeed a question of non-notability. Or is the issue of Smokeasac not notability, but just article structure/wording and sourcing? Silverseren^C 21:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that there's both notability and promotional issues there, and we can add Salem Ilese to the list of articles that make me go "meh". We're at 2/3 of the one's I've looked at. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, Salem Ilese does meet the Wikipedia:Notability (music) requirements for achieving RIAA certified gold status, along with charting nationally. I'm aware of the content issue, and didn't intentionally write it in reverse order. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If all went through AFC, I think more process is in order for a deletion with only a G11 rationale. Even more so now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Some did, some didn't, some had (now retired) reviewers that I wouldn't put much stock in, others were reviewed by editors in good standing. At this point, keeping them deleted interferes with our ability to assess the articles both for their own sake and for their relevance to COI issues, so I'm going to go ahead and reverse the rest of them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm adding in these (which I didn't even work on, but were connected to Jacob Sartorius)

• Sweatshirt (song)
• The Last Text
• Hit or Miss (Jacob Sartorius song)

There's also a bunch of other Jacob Sartorius album and EP articles which were deleted (and, again, I wasn't involved in any of them). Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Those appear to all be redirects pointing at the deleted articles, FWIW. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, would it be better if I listed each deleted article by Athaenara during this time or is there a way you can see that internally? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You can find them with a Special:Logs search. Given that they're all either redirects or defunct drafts, I don't think there's a need to go through all the effort of restoring them until the merits of the deletion of actual articles has been decided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Aren't some of these deleted talk pages useful for context? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you need the full list (it's actually unhelpful to have such a long list posted here), since redirects can just be remade yourself once the core article is back. Though I do notice that The Last Text EP was only deleted because Sartorius was deleted. Was that a full article? Since the album charted in multiple countries, it definitely meets notability requirements. And you can have albums even if the performer doesn't have an article. So, why was that one deleted at all? Was it just a redirect too? Silverseren^C 22:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I was intending to separate the ones that were linked to this particular incident, as I saw the admin deleted a lot of articles today (some of which don't have to do with this discussion). Jacobmcpherson (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored The Last Text EP as it clearly meets criteria #2 of WP:NALBUMS. I also do not see the unambiguous promotion. What information is there that makes the article irredeemably promotional? For disclosure, I was heavily involved early on when Jacob Sartorius was created, deleted it, and even protected its re-creation at one point. However, notability was established, and it became a magnet for promotional editing as well as serious BLP violations. I took it off my watchlist a couple years ago. That said, given the long editing history including those of long-established editors in good standing and the long discussions involving notability including multiple AfD discussions, is deleting rather than looking for the last good version a good idea? I think if we deleted articles on basis of some UPE (or even disclosed paid) adding garbage we could be harming the encyclopedia in the long run. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What I didn't say above, but meant to: I think it is good to have additional eyes on these articles, and I restored the one page because I think it clearly meets notability guidelines, but I hope others look at it and if they believe I am mistaken, should therefore nominate it for a full deletion discussion. Also, Athaenara, it is good to have you back in the active administrator ranks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought all articles had to go through an AfD or Prodding, to be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

See: CAT:SPEEDY. There are several good reasons to delete things immediately without full community review. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole discussion yet, but I believe it is not directly against policy for an admin to delete an article that unambiguously meets a CSD criteria without tagging. Specifically, anything obviously meeting WP:G3, WP:G10 or WP:G12 should be deleted immediately and without waiting for discussion; I would not expect anyone to wait for a tag before deleting I know where Ritchie333 lives and want to kill him. For other criteria, particularly WP:G4 and WP:G11, I find it is best practice to tag and get a second opinion. In the specific case of Carowinds, it superficially looked like a copyvio and gave a "violating likely" score of about 90% on the tool, but I wasn't entirely sure this was correct, so I tagged instead of deleting. I was right to be suspicious, as the tag was reverted when it was pointed out it was a reverse copyvio instead. Like others, I make no comment here about whether Athaenara's actions were optimal or the best cause of action for the project, simply that it doesn't seem to be an egregious policy violation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft deletion

Why did you delete Draft:Bill Dorfman, Athaenara? There's plenty of drafts that are promotional and need to be improved over time and the point of drafts as a whole are to improve them so they meet mainspace requirements. Also, considering some of the other articles you deleted, I don't exactly trust your application of G11 as accurate in the first place. Silverseren^C 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the leading questions are particularly productive here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the final question, but the initial question remains. Silverseren^C 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

SilverSeren, have you considered how hostile your phrasing above is? I for one trust Athaenara implicitly. That's not to say that I think her judgment is beyond reproach - we are all fallible - but we are seeing in this thread the application of the checks and balances that apply to admins' decisions. I don't see any reason to start questioning trust - please step back. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not questioning trust, I'm questioning their capability to properly judge speedy deletion criteria, especially when it seems they applied them uniformly to a bunch of articles without bothering to actually consider if the articles met the criteria. If anything, it seems like a vendetta against an editor for being an open and transparent paid editor. Silverseren^C 00:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Under the "we're not perfect" spirit, it should be possible to, in a friendly way, discuss a possible weakness in one particular area. For example, with the pervasive vague hostility towards paid editing, and the well-founded hostility to undeclared paid editing, it would be be easy to fall prey to hostility towards declared paid editing.North8000 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And that has impaired their capability to judge the merits of the articles in question. Silverseren^C 01:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are questioning her capability to make decisions, based on one set of decisions you disagree with? Doesn't that seem hasty to you? Wouldn't it be better just to say that you disagree, rather than immediately start questioning someone's competence? Is there a back story here? Girth Summit _(blether) 01:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Their initial response to this thread after it was posted directly acknowledged the biased reasons for their actions against OP. It was this and the restoration of the Sartorius and EP articles, showing them to be completely innocuous articles on notable subjects with no promotional text or anything, that gave me the opinion that their judgement of the articles was impaired and that it was indeed an action taken against OP in particular because of them being transparent about their paid editing.

@Silver seren: Why? Because I agreed with Justlettersandnumbers, who tagged it {{db-g11}} at 17:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC). – Athaenara ✉ 01:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For which I thank you, Athaenara! I've just looked at the draft again, and I can see not one word there that is not intended to promote the subject (though it pales in comparison with that person's own promotional materials). It is an advertisement (a text written for the express purpose of promoting something) and it reads as an advertisement. I indeffed the OP on 11 March 2021 as a spam/advertising-only account; that was changed (with my agreement) to a partial block from mainspace by Xeno, but I'm afraid I don't see that that has solved the problem or that it brings any benefit to our project. In theory, Wikipedia does not tolerate WP:PROMOTION of any kind; I've never been able to see any reason to exempt from that those who are lining their pockets off our hard work, whether or not they're doing so in line with our guidance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with in part with nearly everyone here. But a quick set of thoughts:

We should not be speedying articles that don't meet a CSD criteria. In particular, being created by a declared paid editor is not the same as the article being promotional.

While these deletions seem quite problematic, there is little harm in being polite.

If not all of these that were deleted get restored here, the right place for this is WP:DRV.

Hobit (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How do I request the undeletion of drafts so I can keep improving them? I didn’t see it on WP:DRV. I’m also confused as to why Draft:Bill Dorfman was flagged for deletion, as I was still working on it and didn’t yet submit it for review.Jacobmcpherson (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically just pick one of the deleted articles and follow the directions at DRV. And then list the rest of them that you want back. I'd suggest not listing the redirects--just mention them and indicate that your intent is to restore them if the article they were pointing to gets restored. Though I'd suggest waiting another 24 or 48 hours and seeing if your issues are resolved here first. And yes, DRV can also handle deleted drafts. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Got it. I'm listing the deleted drafts here, as they weren't included above. Aside from the already mentioned Draft:Bill Dorfman, these ones were also impacted:

Draft:ALDAE & Draft talk:ALDAE (this one is interesting, because Athaenera noted that I'm a blocked spammer in the comment, which wasn't/isn't true at the time of deletion, as I'm partially blocked. Also, I had just started the draft, and didn't abandon it).

Draft:Kim Anh & Draft talk:Kim Anh (I had been trying to work through this with the WikiProject LGBT studies community).

Draft:Tamara Deike & Draft talk:Tamara Deike

Draft:Emile Ghantous & Draft talk:Emile Ghantous (there's a discussion around this one on my talk page, where I received useful feedback and was intending on implementing it).

I was intending to improve these articles. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be speeding articles which do not meet CSD criteria (this is actually one bit of admin discretion which makes RfA so problematic). But I do not think anybody argues here that any creation of declared paid editor is by definition a promotional article amenable for speedy. We should be discussing (and I assume we will be discussing at an appropriate venue) whether G8 and G11 criteria apply to a specific set of articles listed above.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence of Draft:Bill Dorfman reads "Dr. Bill Dorfman (born September 16, 1958) in Los Angeles, California is a Century City-based American cosmetic dentist, New York Times bestselling author, television co-host, founder of the LEAP (Leadership, Excellence, and Accelerating Your Potential) Foundation, and former co-founder of Discus Dental (acquired by Philips)." I've put the bits in bold that are problematic - given that appears to be indicative of the draft, I'm going to endorse the G11 deletion as an uninvolved admin (and somebody who is not exactly unknown for challenging CSD tags). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Closure of Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause

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

---

Request

I'm requesting to review early closure of the said thread per $ Challenging a closing and poor reasoning. I've talked to the user who have closed the discussion here: Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause closure. The RfC is basically about repealing ambigous portion of the WP:WAR which conflicts with WP:POLICY#Content.

Closure diffs

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

09:06, Dec 9, 2021 - «Restored revision 1059330603 by JBchrch talk): The way to go would be WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This proposal just wasting time.»

08:57, Dec 9, 2021 - «Undid revision 1059330603 by JBchrch talk) WP:GOODFAITH closure; give more time and let more input; see Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause closure.»

20:59, Dec 8, 2021 - «‎Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause: Early close per WP:SNOW. After 2 days of discussion and 10 !votes, there is unanimous opposition to the proposal.»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a WP:BOOMERANG block may be needed if this editor continues with such timewasting. The result of the discussion was crystal-clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The proposal was motivated by personal pique and was frivolous. It should have been ignored, but Wikipedians cannot resist a discussion about policy, regardless of its merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Following Phil Bridger's comment I'm expecting soon to see Alexander Davronov launch an RfC into the applicability of WP:BOOMERANG. Because the repeated pattern with this editor is that when they suffer some perceived setback they embark on a camapign to try and change the "rules" for retrospective vindication. Currently there is a tedious push at WT:BMI where they're arguing that the effect of (recreational) drugs on the human body somehow isn't biomedical, because of some tortured interpretation they're advancing for WP:BMI. It's all becoming a bit of a time sink. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• I was previously unaware that this discussion existed so I responded to Alexander Davronov's challenge on my talk page here. JBchrch talk 16:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• The closure was fine - there was unanimous opposition, consisting of well-reasoned arguments that were in-line with established policy and practice. The proposal did not have any chance of gaining consensus, and leaving it open for longer would simply have wasted more people's time. Alexander Davronov would be well advised to drop this stick completely and go do something productive. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Raw head counting and pile-on never been "fine". Users are also free to go past something they don't want to waste time on. That's how it works. And I'm sure that the "well-reasoned arguments" is not the right phrasing for rumbling (save to, probably two opinions in the original RfC). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Just saying that this was based on raw head counting and pile-on rather than well-reasoned arguments does not make it so. Consensus is that it was not. Nobody can force you to take advice from experienced editors, but don't be surprised if failing to do so leads to a block. People don't want to waste time on proposals that have little chance of being implemented, but also don't want such proposals to go through because of a lack of opposition. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think the summary of the RfC was pretty clear on head counting. I won't even go to discuss the rest. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  You came here asking for uninvolved admins to review the closure. I have just done that for you - I read through the discussion, and in my view the closure was fine. I didn't expect you to like my conclusion, but you got what you came here for. Please don't try to waste yet more time turning this into a back-and-forth discussion - drop this and go do something else before someone makes a proposal to implement a topic ban. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• As another uninvolved admin, the WP:SNOW close seems perfectly reasonable. As a long-standing policy with wide, almost daily use it was very unlikely to have such a sweeping change made; and the well-reasoned responses from a number of active Wikipedians with a sound grasp of policy and its application only confirms that. Which is not to say that any policy could not use periodic revisiting and updating. The OP was within their rights to ask for that discussion, they got a sufficient response, and it was unlikely that leaving the discussion open further would have led to a different end result. It was a good close. --Jayron32 19:19, 9 December 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.

Topic ban appeal

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

---

• Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lachin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shusha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zabux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to appeal my recently reinstated topic ban for Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 topics. The topic ban was primarily reinstated for my edits on the Lachin article. In the time since I have been banned, there has been a consensus among uninvolved users agreeing with removing most of the content I had been removing for much of the same reasons, such as being original research and excessive details used for POV pushing. I feel that my topic ban was reinstated a little too eagerly. The imposing admin Future Perfect at Sunrise said my edits were "clearly a return to the old pattern of tendentious editing". However, the same claim had been made against me not only once but twice since my original ban had been removed, and was refuted in both cases. This also ignores the attempts I've made to solve content disputes with talk page discussions[28][29], RfCs,[30] and noticeboard reports (this discussion never even got a reply despite the user pushing unsourced material)[31]. What should really be clear, is that my reverts weren't deserving of a topic ban, or at least an indefinite topic ban is excessively harsh. --Steverci (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

For completeness, this is an unsuccessful appeal from two weeks ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, there is an ongoing discussion and RFC on talk of Lachin, and no consensus has been reached so far. Unfortunately, there is very little interest in this RFC from the Wikipedia community. More outside opinions would be helpful. And what is being discussed there is how to better summarize the sources on burning and looting of the town. That is not what Steverci was doing, he was simply deleting content with no discussion at talk. He only joined the talk after I initiated the discussion. I don't think that there is a consensus of uninvolved editors that my edits constituted an original research or POV pushing, like Steverci claims. And repeated removal of Armenia as an occupying party [32] [33], despite the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, and Armenia signing 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement and agreeing to withdraw its army from the territory of Azerbaijan, is a clear example of tendentious editing by Steverci. It was one of the reasons for his topic ban. Grandmaster 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added an RFC template. That should get it more attention & thus more editor participation. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is accurate to say that the topic ban was the result of Steverci's edits to Lachin. I became aware of the contention of Steverci's edits with regard to Shusha (a different town in the same war zone). So I wonder whether Steverci is mentioning Lachin in order to distract attention from the previous contention about Shusha. I would also say that, by appealing a topic-ban twice within a month after it was imposed, User:Steverci is being a vexatious litigant. I haven't researched the content of the edits, but the pattern is problematic. There should be some response to this request beyond denying it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Procedurally, to your point about the double appeal: in fairness, I wouldn't hold this against Steverci in the present instance, since the previous appeal was cut short and closed speedily on procedural grounds, before receiving a definite consensus response on its merits, so I don't think we should deny him the chance of trying a second time (although from the existing responses to the last attempt it looked clear that it was unlikely to get much traction). I agree with your point about the different articles. Yes, Lachin was by no means the only page or even the most significant page involved. He was engaged in parallel fights across several similar articles (all about towns or villages in the Nagorno-Karabakh warzone, and all about how to handle the mutual wartime atrocities happening in them). For Lachin, I also find Steverci's current argument specious: yes, it may be true that he was removing material that others have in the meantime also objected to as being "excessive detail" – but that was not "much the same" as the reasons for his own actions, because the first thing he did was not to discuss that material as being undue, but to exchange it against other material of pretty much the same nature and the same degree of excessive detail, only turning around the roles of victims and perpetrators [34]. As for other articles, I have to say the edits that made the most negative impression on me were those in Zabux. This [35] edit, all by itself, would have been enough to justify sanctions, in my view. Because saying that one village was destroyed "because" the other side had previously pillaged others, is injecting the logic of wartime ethnic retribution and nationalist tit-for-tat right into Wikipedia's own voice. This one word alone, "because", would warrant a topic ban as far as I'm concerned, if nothing else did. I would certainly recommend declining this appeal, again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't really have any way of knowing what you considered the biggest issues, because they were all generalized as "old patterns" and my statement explaining my actions was hardly addressed before the ban was quickly reinstated. I mentioned Lachin because I do admit I screwed up with it by not starting a talk discussion sooner (even though it was technically Grandmaster's responsibility because he was the one changing consensus) and because I allowed myself to be baited into 3RR (albeit on different days). However, I strongly believe my changes had only improved Lachin and Zabux from their previous state, even if there may have been still room for more improvement. I made a resource request for the sources because Grandmaster's edits were so incredibly biased that I suspected there was info he was leaving out, and I was exactly right. Grandmaster selectively excluded everything from the sources that made Azeris look bad, from the supplies being used to replace what the Azeris looted to the presence of Stepanakert shelling victims. On the other hand, I had never actually tried to remove mention of the looting in it's entirety; I tried to create an equal weight summary of the sources. If my wording could've been improved, I wouldn't have stopped anyone from doing so. But it was an immediate improvement from the previous state (of changes Grandmaster had made just a day ago) because I was including information that Grandmaster had neglected. I wasn't "justifying" anything by writing the supplies were going to help villages the Azeris had looted, I was just citing what the journalist had stated. Unlike Grandmaster, who included MOS:ALLEGED wording like "claimed";[36][37] the journalists didn't write anything casting doubt on what they were told. Or MOS:PUFFERY writing like "and showed no sign of embarrassment at the sight of trucks taking away looted property"[38]. Maybe "because" sounds like wartime ethnic retribution out of context, but was simply about including the entirety of the source information. --Steverci (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with my edits on the Shushi article? There weren't any on the AE request. In fact, it was Grandmaster who failed to get a consensus for most of the contentious changes he kept pushing for. His WP:EXCEPTIONAL/MOS:LEAD addition was removed[39], Nersesov isn't considered an Armenian source, there were no sources for organized destruction of Azeri monuments, etc. Grandmaster even tried to pass off photographs as sources.

And what is wrong with me appealing the topic ban when the last one was closed prematurely, Fut.Pref told me I was still entitled to make an appeal, and I even made the changes Fut.Pref suggested but didn't require by not even mentioning Grandmaster. In the first appeal, I pointed out that Grandmaster had been running an Azeri meatpuppet mailing list on the Russian Wikipedia, and that in the mailing list he had instructed on how to WP:GAME the system to get Armenian users blocked and mass-vote for new admins he thought would help them. My first appeal wasn't a sanction request for Grandmaster, it was to show the AE request was an example of him still gaming the system to eliminate the competition. Grandmaster has never shown any proof of changing his old behavior; he and his mailing list got their indefinite block removed because our own Ymblanter, also a Russian wiki admin, accepted a large money bribe (Yaroslav Blanter is Ymblanter) to unblock them. But somehow I'm the only one being held to their past despite earning my topic ban being removed the honest way. Nonetheless, I left it out of my appeal to try being constructive. So exactly what kind of "response" is needed for me doing precisely what I was asked to? --Steverci (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Been trying to add an RFC template to the RFC-in-question. But, legobot keeps deleting it. Don't know if legobot's got a glitch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs)

Because the discussion started on 4 December 2020, not 2021. The bot sees that it is one year old.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Embarrassingly, I thought it read 4 December 2021. Middle-age effects, no doubt. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because of the diff provided by Future Perfect at Sunrise which reveals a shocking insertion of an enthnonationalist POV in Wikipedia's voice, and the user's record of "flipping the record" in these ugly wars between nationalities. Accusing Ymblanter of accepting a bribe based on that editor saying they were offered a bribe (jokingly or not) is beyond the pale. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see that above I am being implicated in a criminal offence. For the record, I have never accepted a bribe in my life, as a matter of principle, and I have never received any monetary reimbursement for my Wikimedia participation. This is libel. Could an uninvolved admin please decide whether the revision-deletion (and possibly an oversight is needed), and whether there is any reason not to block Steverci indef now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Google translates that 2010 passage at .ru (with great poise, I'm sure) as follows:

We were offered a large amount of money. So far, what the other side has proposed is only enough for an unlimited blocking of five participants, or blocking ten for a year. To block all 26 indefinitely, the amount will need to be increased by at least five times. The 26th, if a contract is concluded, will be permanently blocked free of charge .-- Yaroslav Blanter 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... Okay... I have no idea what's happening. A joke probably...? I mean, I doubt an admin could get away with bribery on a major Wikimedia project, just out in the open. Something like that would reverberate, and yet it hasn't (I don't think). I suspect that Steverci knows this. Still, Ymblanter, maybe give us a hint, just a little hint, about what's going on? Like, how are there 26 users facing a un/block on the 26th (26th of what, what?) as part of a "contract"? Anyway, I'm leaning indef, probably for the bribery accusation, but also because, in my view, appealing 2 weeks after an unsuccessful previous appeal is an abuse of process. Which is unfortunate, because I vaguely (vaguely) recall supporting easing Steverci's sanctions in the not too distant past. Ultimately, though, all of this is just challenging to follow. And I'm far from a novice when it comes to WP:AA2 arbitration enforcement, so I can only imagine how confusing this is to the average AN reviewer. El_C 09:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It was indeed a joke. As I mentioned on a number of previous occasions, I was a drafting arbitrator on that decision (note it was in 2010), and "we" here means the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom (more specifically, these seven people). This was a difficult case, and in this episode an Armenian user was unhappy with what she thought was too mild (for the Azeri side) outcome of the case, and she thought that the Arbcom suddenly has changed their stance without no reason. I responded by the sentence cited above, and from the context is is very clear it is a joke. Everybody, including the user who asked the question, understood it in this way, there was no ambiguity. Of course if someone starts to take it out of context and to add details which are not there it might sound differently.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, if I remember correctly, there were 26 users who were party to the case, but I would need to look up the details. Not that they are important now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the comment by Ymblanter was a joke as he has confirmed, some context is included here: (again, courtesy of Google translate):

Changes in weather

Judging by the cheering tone of the responses of the members of the group of 26,the consideration of the claim has moved to a new level and the issue of blocking for coordinated actions is no longer being considered. Those. the function of arbitration has smoothly transformed into the function of an arbitration court. I would be very grateful to someone if they could explain how such a transformation took place and for what reason. Thanks in advance for the replies, - Zara-arush 09:56 7 Jun 2010 (UTC)

We were offered a large amount of money. So far, what the other side has proposed is only enough for an unlimited blocking of five participants, or blocking ten for a year. To block all 26 indefinitely, the amount will need to be increased by at least five times. The 26th, if a contract is concluded, will be permanently blocked free of charge .-- Yaroslav Blanter 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yaroslav, you wrote the funniest remark in the entire discussion of the case of the 26 commissars! - Ds02006 10:28 June 7, 2010 (UTC)

What black humor! But our time also costs money .-- Zara-arush 10:31 Jun 7, 2010 (UTC)

It's at least strange that the money you were offered was huge, but for such a sum you can send half of the Wikipedia participants in all its language sections for an indefinite period. Hmm, it means someone chopped off more ... sort it out among your money listed :-)))) - Lori-m Ր Ե Վ 10:34, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

So yeah, a joke (quite a good one actually). BTW Steverci don't go and pull an out of context diff, because anyone can just find the context and see that you are not being entirely honest. I'll be interested to see how long you end up blocked for. Mako001 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time to put an end to abuse of 2010 Russian arbitration case in en:wiki. The arbitration committee of en:wiki was aware of that ru:wiki case 12 years ago, and did not find it actionable here. And that ru:wiki case is being repeatedly used here to harass other users, and even admins, as one can see. This should stop. Grandmaster 10:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Steverci blocked indef

User_talk:Steverci#Indefinite_block. El_C 09:48, 5 December 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.

Proposed community ban for User:Steverci

In view of Steverci's continued I didnt hear that and not me, now with useless block appeals, I propose that we formalize the indefinite block into a community ban that only the community can lift. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, given the useless UB requests, it's unlikely they'd be unblocked soon. If they are unblocked, it's possible it would be brought to AN for review anyway. If not, it's likely some conditions would need to be agreed to. If not, the AE topic ban is still in force. If they continue with useless UB requests, TP access would be removed & they would have to go the UTRS route, which would be posted here anyway I think. So I guess that may explain the lack of participation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

DriedGrape AE block appeal

Earlier today, I was informed that DriedGrape (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had violated their WP:AA2 TBAN again. Previously, on Oct 26, I had blocked them for 48 hours for this, so this being the second AE block, it was set for 2 weeks this time. DriedGrape asked for me to copy their AE block appeal to this noticeboard, so here it is:

Hello El_C or whoever is reviewing my appeal. If you were to check my edit history and the edits themselves, you would see they are not subject to my arbitration block. I have been updating population info on the provinces of Turkey going alphabetically and fixing minor mistakes, grammar or structural oddities: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. During my works, I have done a minor restructering on the Ağrı Province to combine relevant paragraphs in the lead while updating the population info, specifically the first lead paragraph with the last, latter of which included general info like the provincial capital, and the current governer: [45] It was a minor edit and did not in any way change the meaning of the article.

I have just now saw what I was also accused of, the Azeri name I have added on Kars was already existent in the stable version and was recently mistakenly removed by another editor: [46] as I mentioned in the edit reason. Which while probably was a honest mistake on the other editors part, would be vandalism, correcting of which is within WP:BANEX. I have simply added it back: [47]. And like I said, I did not remove any info relating to Armenia on Ağrı but rather combined the relevant paragraphs together, as the editor who reported me has admitted in your talk page later as a reply. I do not think that is in any way a violation of my sanction. It didn't even cross my mind at the time and I was pretty appalled when I saw I was blocked. I hope you reconsider and let me get back to it. Thanks. DriedGrape (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My response is essentially that the AA2 topic area encompasses edits that pertain to Azerbaijanis/Armenians demography data or language usage in cities and provinces of Turkey, as was the case here, not just in Azerbaijan or Armenia. And that these need not involve major changes, because minor modifications are themselves a slippery slope. El_C 03:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I can see how a good-faith editor would think that edits like [48] are not subject to AA2 discretionary sanctions. On the other hand, an editor subject to an AA2 topic ban probably should probably avoid that type of edit. And DriedGrape's edit history is almost entirely moderate disruption in that general area. If DriedGrape would agree to avoid edits on geopolitics in the entire region (including Turkey and Kurdistan) I don't think the full block would be necessary. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Épine unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Épine (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Copyright Violation on Image

Hello, I see this image - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Salem_Ilese.jpg has been flagged for a copyright violation, but it's incorrectly tagged, as I didn't take it from the website listed. The photographer's agent provided it to me directly, and I instructed them to have the photographer send the proper form via VRT. The claim made here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jacobmcpherson isn't representative of how the image was sourced and uploaded. This seems to be related to my other issue on the administrators' noticeboard, found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass deletion of approved articles Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You would need to contact commons:Commons:OTRS. The image will likely be deleted in the meanwhile, if the OTRS would accept your evidence they will undelete the image.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for your response Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Are school/university assignments involving editing Wikipedia pages allowed?

I've just spent quite a bit of time cleaning up low-quality edits to Apollonius of Perga that were apparently made as part of a university assignment: WP:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_to_Newton_(Fall_2021)

Are such assignments in accordance with WP policy? It seems this introduces a flood of low-quality edits. It might be appropriate for instructors to be more actively involved to assure the quality of such edits. I'm not here to complain about specific editors, just trying to find out what the policy is. Please advise if this is not the right place to ask. Thanks. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia:Student assignments#Advice for editors is how you should approach it, if there are no specific problems you want to address here. User:Ian (Wiki Ed) is the contact for this assignment, so you can ask on their talk page. If you still need assistance, try Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Flix11 has been banned

Per the advice in the banning policy, this section is created to notify that Flix11 has been community banned under 3X for repeated confirmed block evasion. Flix11 was banned following two separate confirmations of sockpuppetry post their first indef block in the SPI case. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Changes to the Functionaries email list

Following a review of current practices involving email lists, the Arbitration Committee has decided that the functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org) will no longer be set to accept incoming email aside from list members and WMF staff. For private concerns other than those requiring oversight, please contact the Arbitration Committee directly.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the Functionaries email list

Reporting 2601:48:8100:B6A0:28A9:9060:BA38:FE13

2601:48:8100:B6A0:28A9:9060:BA38:FE13 (talk · contribs)

This editor is using multiple accounts for edit warring in the articles Cheek to Cheek, Chromatica, and Joanne.

Cheek to Cheek

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52].

Chromatica

[53]

[54]

[55]

Joanne

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

The editor has been reverted by other editors SNUGGUMS, Ronherry, Sricsi, and Tbhotch, but keep restoring their edits. The editor has admitted in my talk page that they will reinstate their edits [62]. This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, let’s tell it like it really is. No one, absolutely no one, is here to build an encyclopedia. Everyone is here to put their own opinions and biases into an already existing database of information. You are simply trying to get rid of someone whose opinions you disagree with, so that you can continue having your opinions be put on this site. People like you remind me why humanity was a mistake. 2601:48:8100:B6A0:28A9:9060:BA38:FE13 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

And another thing; you told me that the reason that you were reverting my edits was because I didn’t provide a source. However, when I brought it to your attention that other users had done literally the same thing as me on another page, not only did you ignore that message, but you deleted it. This shows that you actually don’t care about people providing sources, you simply just want to revert any edits that you disagree with but need to come up with a rationale for doing so, so you threw out the lack of sources. Any reasonable person would have looked into the Cheek to Cheek issue I brought up, since you cared so much about it when it came to me. But you inexplicably ignored it and deleted the message. I believe this shows that you are WP:NOTHERE. 2601:48:8100:B6A0:28A9:9060:BA38:FE13 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS and Tbhotch already explained to you that collaboration albums does not count as part of the artist's discography in this discussion and yet you keep restoring your edits, which is disruptive editing. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

AmazingPeanuts has every right to clear his talk page of your "messages", because they're clearly insincere. You are not here to learn or improve Wikipedia, but rather turn it into a fandom wikia. You should read WP:POINT and WP:RS; nobody cares if you saw other IP editors adding unsourced factoids. If you saw those unsourced prose, then why don't you remove it? AmazingPeanuts is not obligated to act on something he didn't come across. You do not care about those unsourced edits, you are only highlighting it now because you want your unsourced edits to be allowed, which is not possible. If you don't wanna be blocked, please edit according to the guidelines laid down by Wikipedia: use reliable sources, paraphrase sentences appropriately so as to aptly dipslay the degree of appreciation/criticism in the source, do not edit war, do not sabotage editors' talk pages, and do not create multiple accounts to make your points/edits. That is all I can say. Regards. Ronherry (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

IP Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 10:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I said collaborative albums DO count as part of an artist's discography, TheAmazingPeanuts. Looks like you mistyped something. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Yes I did, thanks for pointed that out. My grammar can be off sometimes. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Log redaction concern

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

---

Hello. I recently encountered a few instances of log redaction. I have carefully reviewed the criteria for both revision deletion and oversight, and, given the type of log action and the field(s) redacted, I have come to the conclusion that these instances of log redaction were very likely inappropriate. I'm hesitant to mention exactly which logs I'm talking about, because I trust that the administrator or oversighter who did this did it for good reason (although I don't think it was within policy, I don't want to bring it to wider attention, particularly in case the redaction was appropriate). Is there somewhere I could request review of these redactions? Thanks, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to review such actions, if we don't know who did them. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: I suggest you privately submit your concern to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org; this will engage the oversight team to look in to the matter, this includes arbcom. Sometimes when performing a redaction or an suppression an error can be made, so checking in to it is worthwhile. Keep in mind, that with removed content - sometimes the details of why it was removed are unable to be shared. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Xaosflux. I'll write an email. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, an earlier step you may take would be to privately contact the admin using wikimail and ask them directly (if you know who it is) - but the escalation from there would be best to to the private mailing list above. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Due to this being a log redaction, I'm not sure if it was RevDel or oversight, and I don't see anything obvious on the RevDel log. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: understood, os's will be able to find it and may contact the acting admin or oversighter directly. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, revision deletions of log entries appear on Log Deletion log, not the Revision Deletion log (which is what you imply you looked at). —Cryptic 05:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Sorry! I did check the log deletion log, not the revision deletion log. I thought log deletions were also done by RevDel, and must have mixed them up. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the oversight team. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• These look to be revdels so they're open for community review, which is why I'm commenting here, but they were privacy and harassment related so I don't really think having a big discussion about this at AN is a great idea. And Tol, sorry, but I'm going to push back on you for this — while admin accountability is important, asking questions about things that happened 4-5 years ago related to a user you don't appear to have ever interacted with isn't a great look. Anyway, my suggestion here is let sleeping dogs lie. I don't mean to be flippant about this, but I really don't like that there's a thread on AN about 4-5 year old revdels that don't appear to have any impact on the person starting the thread. You could have reached out to the relevant person directly, since you were able to piece it together, and I think that would be a much better approach than having a discussion on AN about this topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  And just so we're clear the logs themselves were revdelled by Oshwah who I will notify of this discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed, thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: I think there was a misunderstanding — while I was able to figure out the hidden information, I looked in the log deletion log, and was not able to figure out who performed the log deletion. While the revdel wasn't related to me, I thought it looked highly concerning that they were redacted given the type of log and the context around the log. If you think the redaction was valid, then I won't question it further — I just wanted another person or two to review it. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. It being hard to figure out who did log redactions is accurate. But yes, my view is that given the circumstances surrounding them when they were done, they were valid, and I don't think we need to revisit, especially given how long ago we're talking about. Thanks for the gracious reply. My suggestion would be that a passing admin close this thread (unless you or someone else has more questions.) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) If you trust that they did it for good reason, then what is the issue? There are many many possible variations of potentially problematic log events that are not envisioned in policy simply because the circumstances don't arise often enough; this is reflected by both the RevDel and OS criteria containing language stating that the criteria are not exhaustive. (RevDel: In general, only material that meets at least one of the criteria below should be deleted, emphasis added. OS: Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing [non-public personal] information, including (but not limited to) [list of reasons], ditto.) We elect admins and appoint OSes who we trust to use their judgment wisely in these situations. Absent clear guidance in policy as to whether a RevDel or OS was permissible, we should ask always whether it was in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I think it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia to shield users from harassment or, to take another case of IAR/discretionary log-deletion I've seen, to remove non-OSable PII from a log summary that was showing up to a large number of users. And these things are monitored, both actively (admins/OSes checking the logs) and passively (admins/OSes seeing the struckthrough entries). There was a case years ago where an admin log-deleted a block they'd made, and was immediately desysopped. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 18:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: I understand your point. I was mainly interested in having a third party check that the deletion wasn't mistaken. My reasoning was summarised in Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction: "Log redaction (outside the limited scope of RD#2 for the creation, move, and delete logs) is only allowed for grossly improper content; it is not permitted for ordinary matters as the community needs to be able to review users' block logs and other logs, whether or not proper" (bolding in original). I don't think the logs in concern were "grossly improper", and they don't seem to fit any criteria. I also think IAR should be less applicable in more sensitive circumstances (such as log deletion, but also for checkusers, bureaucrats, and such). Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• I do appreciate that someone may be concerned about a redaction and ask for a review. We can't deny that there have been some questionable uses in the past (apparently not here though). In future cases, in addition to the oversight option, or this noticeboard, it can pay to get to know some admins who may be knowledgeable about such things and whose opinion you can trust. Then ask them to review it as an initial step, probably by email. There's also CAT:REVDEL which seems to contain some reasonable people. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:46, 11 December 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.

Spaming and citespam

Please check and revert the edits of this IP: 31.2.145.77. I went through the edits. They added a recently published article to multiple articles without paying attention to context. It is a clear WP:CITESPAM. Thanks Pirehelo (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I have found and removed two other instances and Special:Contributions/5.123.46.75 and Special:Contributions/31.2.227.69 are also related. It indeed looks like promotional refspam but they appear to have stopped for now when warned two days ago... —PaleoNeonate – 12:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at wp:rfpp

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

---

I am posting this to bring attention that there is currently 35+ requests open at wp:rfpp. I requested for temporary protection of Omicron. 2402:3A80:6CA:2E99:5BD5:F22A:4AAB:D721 (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

OP blocked – pretty clearly Amkgp editing logged-out. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to have right removed

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'd like to have my pending changes reviewer right removed. I don't find myself using it often at this point and, while I don't really see any systemic harm in keeping it, I also don't really see any need for me to have the permission now or for the next few months. I'd like to focus my reviewing-others'-contributions time more on WP:NPP and WP:AFC, where the backlogs are perennial, rather than by reviewing pending changes where backlogs tend to be much shorter. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY 05:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Template:Automotive industry in Brazil

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.

---

While editing on a mobile phone, I tried to put {{LR}} at Template:Automotive industry in Brazil, but it crashes my browser. Is there a forum to which I can post to get that done? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Jax 0677: you can place an edit request at Template talk:Automotive industry in Brazil, you can try to use a different browser, and you can discuss the technical challenges at WP:VPT - these won't require admins to do anything. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:17, 17 December 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.

Keechant Sewell

{{Admin help}} Greetings. In a failed attempt to merge Keechant Sewell (stub) with into Keechant L. Sewell (complete with citations (10). Please investigate the error and compare the verified edits. and now information is missing Can we correct the merge? Thank you and Happy Holidays Jimgerbig (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jimgerbig, by clicking on the timestamp of any revision at Special:PageHistory/Keechant Sewell and Special:PageHistory/Keechant L. Sewell, you can view the page as it looked at that time. You can then click "Edit" at the top of the page, copy any content you need, and paste it in the current article where needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Here, a history merge is probably needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Tough, with the interleaving/parallel history timestamps. I have provided the necessary attribution instead, which should hopefully suffice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That worked thank you.Jimgerbig (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for fixing the issue! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

UAA backlog

There are 10 bot-reported and 9 user-reported usernames at WP:UAA, and a couple of them are old. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 Thanks, but that's fairly typical in my experience. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

From my experience, there's almost always a high number of bots ones, because the bot is set super-sensitive, flagging, among other things, every username with "fc" in it. Hog Farm _Talk 14:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the bot does seem to produce a lot of false positives. Maybe they need to be checked, but it shouldn't take any admin more than a minute or two to reject a report that needs to be rejected. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Donation

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 already donated a few times and the last time was last week. I still get the message to donate every time. Can I just ignore it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.37.113.222 (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Short answer, yes. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 12 December 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.

Donation

I constantly donate when asked. Usually ten or twenty dollars. I donated $10 via PayPal two weeks ago yet I constantly get pop up’s telling me not to scroll by. How do I stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.29.219 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. Register an account, go to your account preferences, disable the fundraising banners, and you will never see them again. Cullen328 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, whenever I view WP without logging in, the 1st thing I do is disable fucking Java Script. All of the bullshit disappears & I can read WP in peace. The navigation templates at the bottom of articles will always be expanded, but other than that most everything else works. IP, you are using Firefox, download the "Disable JavaScript" extension & enjoy life. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I was planning to donate but after the pushiness of the banner I am inclined not to. ALSO why is it so hard to link the ip address to whether or not someone donated? 2600:387:F:4713:0:0:0:C (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Donations are collected by the Foundation, not us here at Wikipedia. I think think it would violate privacy laws to connect donation records in that way. There is also no guarantee that the person sitting at the computer at any given moment is the person who donated. 331dot (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Linking donations and IP addresses would introduce numerous privacy issues and can't be done by the volunteers here at the English Wikipedia in any case (the Wikimedia Foundation handles donations). This sort of thing is usually handled by browser cookies, so if you clear your cookies or use a different device, you'll just keep seeing the banners. You can either ignore them or register an account as above. clpo13_(talk) 18:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I was planning to donate but after the pushiness of the banner I am inclined not to. I agree, and would not encourage you to donate. The readers benefit from more unpaid volunteers giving us their time—the people who actually write Wikipedia (and those responding to your comments here)—much moreso than from more money to the Wikimedia Foundation. ALSO why is it so hard to link the ip address to whether or not someone donated? To us, this is an unacceptable violation of privacy. Of course, to most for-profit websites, such things are not even a drop in the ocean of privacy violations they don't blink at. — Bilorv (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not know whether linking an IP address to the name of someone who donated (and storing this information) is a good idea for privacy reasons.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Proven socks belonging to a LTA

Hi, first of all I want to apologize if this is not the most appropriate place to open this thread. If it's not, I can move it to the most appropriate place. I'm here to ask the blocking of the following accounts: Bozs (talk · contribs · count), Sérgio Castelar (talk · contribs · count), O revolucionário aliado (talk · contribs · count) and Lentoster (talk · contribs · count). They are all proven socks of Pé Espalhado (talk · contribs · count), a WP:LTA mostly active in the pt.WP (their home wiki), but who also "spread" to other WMF projects, including the en.WP. The WP:SPI can be found here. If you need, I can open a new SPI here on Commons, but as the checkuser's results are valid in all the WMF projects I think it's unnecessary. Regards. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, the venue is fine, the problem is that Pé Espalhado is not blocked here.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I believe that when Pé Espalhado's first socks were uncovered, back in 2012, nobody tried to block them here and, now, they are inactive for almost 10 years (so, I don't know if a block is still "warranted"). They are, however, a prolific sockmaster and one of biggest LTAs in pt.WP. Their last socks took years to be uncovered and some of them are active in several WMF. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 22:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

With Pé Espalhado and I assume other accounts not being blocked, it's not clear to me these accounts are violating our sockpuppetry policy. There is some limited temporal overlap but it's fairly limited and I don't see any overlap in pages edited. So it's not that far off serial account creation. Serial account creation is generally controversial but not explicitly against our sockpuppetry policy. It could be considered avoiding scrutiny but especially without any sign they've been warned a few times, I think we're generally reluctant to call it that. One thing that could be a problem I see various accounts of theirs complaining about various other accounts socking or whatever. If the editors targetted are the same across account, this might be problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• If the disruption on ptwiki is as bad as you say, and has spread to other projects, your best bet is probably to request global locks from the stewards at m:SRG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Oxford High School shooting – discussion closure request

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

---

Hi, can an uninvolved admin evaluate and close the discussion currently being held at Talk:Oxford High School shooting#Names_of_victims? We're looking to close it by December 16th at the earliest, with the qualification that if there appears to be constructive discussion still ongoing, the closure can be delayed to allow that to play out. Asking now so if an uninvolved admin wishes to get started reading the lengthy discussion they can get a headstart. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A reminder that this is a perennial problem. As I noted on my talk page yesterday (and the day before), it's pretty much the same debate with every mass shooting event: list the victims or not. To break this cycle of repetition, there needs to be a decision on what to do, a criteria, etc. (like updating WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, WP:BLP, or even a new policy/guideline). But most of the parties to these disputes are too entrenched in their positions, even though I do think there's a compromise to be found. Each camp even has its own essay on this: the exclusion side has Wikipedia:Victim lists and the inclusion one has Wikipedia:Casualty lists. What is needed most of all, then, are new participants who would be open to compromise, and then go from there. El_C 12:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

May be someone should open a RfC on whether (otherwise non-notable) victims of mass-murder events or catastrophes must be included or not and see what comes out of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Where would be a correct venue for such a discussion? --JBL (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals) would be ideal, since it's a proposal and it's in a centralised location. CENT might be needed if there's a desire to draw in more neutral-minded folk. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't. There were a few discussions about this several years ago. There was no consensus to do anything different than the status quo: each individual article should be considered on its own merits, and that discussion should happen on article talk pages to reach consensus on whether to include it or not. See here and here. I doubt a new discussion would produce any new consensus. --Jayron32 14:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"Several years," you say? That's... time. And a good time as any to give up, I suppose. I know I have. But, again, with some new blood maybe the cycle of repetition can be broken. I, for one, am a hopeless optimist (except when I'm not). El_C 15:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, feel free. COnsensus can change. However, I'm not sure it's a good idea. I generally oppose creating sweeping rules designed to avoid consensus-building at the granular article level. Wikipedia works best when every article is allowed to reach its own best state without falling back on rules that may or may not be useful for that one article. --Jayron32 15:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna do it. But viewing the continued repetition of these same arguments over and over and over again as some sort of positive page agency or whatever, I argue that this does not reflect the reality of what is actually happening. El_C 15:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, a simpler solution than amending NOTMEMORIAL, BLP, etc. would be to simply enforce NPOV's "not negotiable" provision (which is right at the top, before the TOC). We already have enough instruction creep which is why I'm reluctant to propose anything new/different, we just need editors to understand that NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to this situation, and that NPOV does. Simply following what our sources say should not be this complicated but I believe personal motivations are tainting these discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This should be at WP:CR not AN. Levivich 18:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. @Locke Cole: would you consider posting at WP:CR and partially withdrawing your request here? This discussion has mostly focused on a broader question anyway. Firefangledfeathers 18:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:CR can be closed by any editor, as I indicated above, I'd like an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. If I'd wanted any editor, then yes, WP:CR would have been more appropriate. Thank you for your concern. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I suppose it's possible to qualify the ask, so requested at WP:CR. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:06, 14 December 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.

Attack, original research, and vandalizing situation

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

---

Hello,

There is a user named Meng1x1 that is attacking a user named Xuxo. This user is also shouting in the edit summary box, and vandalizing Race and ethnicity in Brazil. His edits were clearly original research, in which he edit warred as well. Can someone help with this situation? Severestorm28 01:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, is this enough to warrant a block, since now (1:34, 15 December 2021) he hasn't been blocked. Severestorm28 01:34, 16 December 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.

Regarding this article, I assume this edit is a block evasion done by User:Rizzer236. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:ACE2021 results

The results of the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections have been posted. Thank you to all of the candidates, voters, and the election team for your participation. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

To those who were chosen, a Gin Blossoms album comes to mind. RickinBaltimore (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new pseudonymous overlords. —Floquenbeam (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations to all the successful candidates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all the candidates for standing, bless and condole all those past the bar. Is it now proper to address those individuals as "my overlord"? BusterD (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

"His/Her Arbitrariness"? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's "Your Most Arbitrary Highness" when being directly addressed and "Their Arbitrariness" when referred to thereafter. There was a successful motion to remove "by the Justice of Jimbo, Exalted Member of the Cabal, and Defender of the Wiki" from the official style as it was too wordy. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@BusterD Perhaps we should consider using a postnominal? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Commiseratulations to those elected, and seconding Buster's thanks to all who ran. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 01:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

And I find that there is such a thing as candidate's remorse. - Donald Albury 02:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'll set up my suck ups early: I think the newly-elected/re-elected arbs are a good batch. I supported 8 candidates —this time including Beeblebrox whom I opposed back in 2019 on Bystander effect grounds— and opposed three. No neutral votes. Neutrality is for the weak. Once again, I angrily call voter fraud on Guerillero not making it. So I'm off to a random creek to investigate that bs. El_C 13:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  @El C: I accept my second Mailer diablo award with good spirits -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  I heard on January 6 there's going to be a peaceful march on arbcom to express displeasure with the results. Perhaps you'd like to join? You might even have a chance to steal acquire NewYorkBrad's historic podium. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Not to worry, fellow patriots, I'll be bringing extra Confederate battle flags for the faithful! Martin Urbanec, I just need you to find me, like, 50 votes (if you know what's good for you). El_C 13:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I will sit this one out and work on an another FA review -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Those of you trying to make nice-nice with the new arbs are never going to do better than this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Brad, it is not often that we get to encounter Off2riorob's username these days. Cullen328 (talk) 04:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Coming up on 20 years as an admin

I just got my 20 year editor badge, and I'll be coming up on 20 years as an admin in Feb next year. I was one of the admins who just got appointed by Jimbo, there was no RFA process back then (RFA emerged around 2004), There were no admins before Feb 2002 because the software didn't support it. (If we needed to delete something, Tim Shell would write a SQL script against the database. It was a different time, that's for sure.) Anyway, you'd be surprised how little has changed - the software improved, procedures were tightened, but the arguing, the debates... yeah, all basically the same. Anyway, here's to another 20 years. Manning (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The arguments surely just had less policies being quoted! 20 years is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congrats for the 20 years! — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 09:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's to the next twenty! ϢereSpielChequers 09:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, and all the best.Keep up the good work :). Lectonar (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congrats. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congrats! Just out of curiosity, how did you learn about Wikipedia that early on? I had never even heard of it until several years later. (A now-banished former bureaucrat told me about some of the work he was doing on here.) --B (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it on a Usenet group. (Kids, ask your parents about Usenet). Manning (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! What will you do for your silver admin anniversary party in five years?

Indeed many arguments are very similar. The very old (2001) history of Wikipedia:Administrators already has debates on whether everybody sane ("one month and three good pages") should be an admin ([63]). I'm starting to wonder how many of us admins have been here forever (I'm at 17 years as editor, 15 years as admin myself). Is there something like the "seniority" graph at User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project anywhere just not twelve years out of date? —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kusma: Y'know what's crazy to think? There are some admins who've had the bit longer than some other admins have been alive. There's also people who've been admins more than half their lives but are still too young to become president. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Three more years for moi! El_C 14:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

18 more for me! Nosebagbear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and thank you for your participation. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow! 20 years! A very exclusive club. Congratulations! Cecropia (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

One has to wonder if you're the first to go 20 years; I don't know where one would find data on that. I'm at a measly coming-up-15 years myself. Congratulations and thanks, in any case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: I believe this is the closest thing we have to comprehensive data on that. Looks like, other than Jimbo, the longest-serving admin is probably Magnus Manske, Toby Bartels, The Cunctator, or AxelBoldt, the exact answer obscured by inaccurate "first edit" dates and unknown sysopping dates. (My favorite detail on that page is that we briefly had an IP admin, 61.9.128.xxx (talk · contribs).) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade: Damn it, you beat me by six months. But I did arrive here 2½ years earlier, so nyah.  — Scott • talk 20:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Congrats and I think we should definitely give you something special for your upcoming silver jubilee. VR _talk 01:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  The first admins in Wikipedia! How happy is that, 20 years is a long time. Why old logs (before 2006) are rarely recorded accurately? Thingofme (talk) 09:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  Because I was still learning to type back then, so I may have stuffed up on occasion. Serious answer: There was a different software program that the wiki was based on back then, before MediaWiki software, and for some reason there are issues with contribs and logs from its earlier days. Maybe someone else can answer this more concisely? Mako001 (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Congrats —MdsShakil (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Belligerent editing/edit summaries on Miss Saigon

I have been involved in some recent edits with an anonymous IP address on the article Miss Saigon. Over the course of the dispute the editor has grown increasingly hostile and belligerent and has resorted to call me a "creep", stated that their opinion is more important than mine, called me "objectively a bad person" and an "evil bastard", and accused me of wanting to "kill Asian men". All this can be found in the edit summaries. Some of the sources the editor has provided are good, and I have attempted to include those in the article, only to have those edits reverted with little to no discussion. DragonFury (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@DragonFury: FWIW, I have left a only warning for a PA on their talk page. Wasell has also reverted the edits. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@DragonFury: @LakesideMiners: There's also been some questionable activity by this editor at Anti-Vietnamese sentiment. I'd appreciate if someone else would take a look at the latest ones. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@DragonFury and Fred Zepelin:: Welp, they posted [[64]] to their userpage. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess that is as good as saying "block me because I will just keep on doing what I want otherwise"? Mako001 (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

El Sandifer unbanned

The Arbitration Committee has accepted El Sandifer (talk · contribs)'s appeal of her ban imposed by motion of the Arbitration Committee (permalink). The Committee has determined that the ban is no longer necessary, and has accordingly resolved to grant the appeal.

Support: Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, CaptainEek, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, Primefac, SoWhy, Worm That Turned

Oppose: BDD, Bradv, David Fuchs, KrakatoaKatie, L235, Maxim

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § El Sandifer unbanned

Block evasion by User:16ConcordeSSC

User:16ConcordeSSC, who was indefinitely blocked in July for persistent unconstructive editing, is now editing as IP users User:2600:1004:B11C:9276:B8D6:2D6C:486D:D84E and User:2600:1004:B11C:9276:B8D6:2D6C:486D:D84E. See User_talk:2600:1004:B164:7205:9411:5BD:E6BF:C05E and compare to User_talk:16ConcordeSSC. -Apocheir (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I was one of the users who initially engaged with this anonymous editor. Both 16ConcordeSSC and the IP identify themselves by the same real name, which makes this an open-and-shut case of block evasion. I was unaware of any connection until I saw a notice placed on the IP's talk page, which I had watchlisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably User:174.212.67.210 too. -Apocheir (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the right solution is to partially block the IP range (which is already partially blocked for an apparently unrelated reason) or to Semiprotect the articles this guy has an interest in. Blocking the IPv6 addresses won't do anything about the IPv4 address, though. -Apocheir (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Quite frankly, our block evader here is not very smart when it comes to editing. Semiprotecting a few articles for a month would hopefully be enough to dissuade him. The railroads seen in his last 100-150 or so contribs of 16ConcordeSSC are good candidates for semiprotection, in particular the Rutland Railroad and Adirondack Railroad where he has recently been editing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Temporary blocks on his IP range would help as well. Hopefully he can be dissuaded from editing, he ragequit back in July after being banned but has mysteriously returned this week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

After checking the Rutland Railroad article I've concluded that these ISPs belong to User:16ConcordeSSC. This is the same pattern of incremental non-sourced edits, belligerence, and harsh criticism of work of other editors, and demand for an arbitrator when questioned about some of his edits. As before, when an source is included it's just the main page of the historical society web site or the name of a book. This editor had also been User:DonPevsner who had edited since 2007! (Although that account is clearly discontinued.) This is no new editor. Despite his interest in railroads this appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE: irreconcilable conflict of attitude, insisting on personal stance, and no interest in working collaboratively. Blue Riband► 03:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Block appeal by User:Free1Soul

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

---

Copied from user talk as requested:

Over a year ago I fixed a few dozen errors in nationality. It is "a Jordanian", not "an Jordanian". It is "an Israeli" not "an Israelian" or "a Israeli". I fixed other errors, not just a and an, like: Iraqian to Iraqi ([65] [66]), Arabian to Saudi or Arab ([67] and then fixed [68] [69]), and Israelian ([70] [71])

My edits were already discussed at AN in this discussion. Consensus of the discussion was as put by User:Asartea: "A quick spot check of some of their contributions shows nothing indicating bad-faith in my opinion. Lots of gnomy edits which is probably why they were editing so fast but no POV pushing, vandalism or other bad behavior. Regarding but until they got over 500 they avoided virtually all articles relevant to ARBPIA considering in my vague memories that area is chockfull of warnings and ECP that isn't that abnormal".

Nothing wrong. These even aren't most of my edits. I have made hundreds of edits since, mostly to food articles. I made hundreds of edits before the nationality fixes, mostly to food articles.

I am also Israeli. I am interested in articles in the region.

Now over a year later, HJ Mitchell decided by himself that any editor that fixes this type of grammar error, a instead of an or the other way around, is 90% a sock.

This is against the discussion that already took place a year ago at AN, where such editing was considered natural and helpful.

Minor copyediting is also suggested in Wikipedia:Growth Team features#Newcomer tasks and this project.

I request that the previous discussion be upheld, that HJ Mitchell's action be overtured, and that my rights as an editor be restored.

Free1Soul (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)}}

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz, for whoever wants to go into details.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I oppose an unblock. The behavior evidence provided at SPI is persuasive. Even if not a sock, this is an editor that made ~500 minor-ish edits and then dove into ARBPIA topics, an editing pattern that we can't allow to continue. Firefangledfeathers 18:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a CU block yes? Can this even be discussed here? Valeince (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, no, but I do not see how this appeal can succeed nothwithstanding--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont think this is a CU block, the CU declined to block and the block was behavioral based. User:Maxim could clarify. nableezy - 18:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The technical relationship is is a  Possible. This means, based on the CU data alone, that the probability of this account being related to other Icewhiz is equal to that of the accounts being unrelated. The block here is HJ Mitchell's, and thus an ordinary sockpuppetry block, and while not trying to put words in his mouth, is most likely because the behavioural evidence is convincing enough for a block. Maxim_(talk) 20:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I would simply block any account that games EC and then dives straight into any controversial area that requires EC to edit, but tht's just me. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Black Kite - It's a correct approach. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

This does look a lot like gaming the system in order to gain EC to me. SQL^{Query Me!} 21:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment from Free1Soul:

Please copy over that this is my first and only account. I was at a Wikipedia workshop in my town over a year ago where the instructor was very angry at some Wikipedia editors but also brought up some useful editing tips. I do not know Yaniv or Icewhiz, I am not them, how can I prove to you I am not them? Those two editors did not edit food articles like I do. Free1Soul (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• I suggest to unblock with tban on Poland and I/P if it's really Icewhiz he cannot disrupt those areas and if isn't we will gain WP:GNOME editor --Shrike (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  If consensus forms around an unblock (which I still oppose), I agree with those two tbans being wise. I'd also suggest revocation of EC status. Firefangledfeathers 19:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Shrike and @Firefangledfeathers - No, that's a bad idea. I have no doubts (zero) that we are dealing with the abuse here. I illustrated that with pieces of evidence. The magnitude of the socking activities in those topic areas and the efforts these barred editors are willing to take to continue is incredible. They will sporadically edit different topics utilizing this account. When the time comes right, they'll appeal. No, there shouldn't be any gap left for potential later use. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  I am inclined to trust your Icewhiz radar, and HJ Mitchell's. My point was: we should not unblock, but if we do, more than just the two tbans should be considered due to the gaming behavior. Firefangledfeathers 22:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Absolutely not; there are so many things wrong with that suggestion that I barely know where to begin. Icewhiz is subject to an ArbComBlock; we are not allowed to overturn that with a simple discussion here. You cannot say "if it's really Icewhiz and we let them back in, that's fine." Icewhiz was banned for extremely serious, sustained real-world harassment, and especially given the obsessive nature of his later behavior (coupled with his willingness to spend huge amounts of time on sleeper accounts), it is unreasonable to expect that he could be trusted in any topic area even if we were permitted to give him the chance you're asking for, which, again, we are not. Beyond that, the blatant way this editor gamed the 30/500 restriction makes it extremely hard to AGF or to trust that they would genuinely abide by the spirit of any further restrictions. Finally, given the extensive use of sleeper accounts, what happens if they behave for six months and then ask for the topic-ban to be removed, while still under suspicion of being Icewhiz? We know that Icewhiz can behave himself for months on end - after all, he nearly got admin status by doing so. --Aquillion (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Given the user gamed the 30/500 system, I'm not inclined to unblock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Nope - as I understand it, it's a sock of Icewhiz. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• To be honest I was never super convinced that this was Icewhiz, but there are definitely Icewhiz socks that would have had me thinking probably not. I think I have, despite my reputation, a fairly high standard for the amount of proof to block for sockpuppetry, and with all due respect to GizzyCatBella who has definitely been spot on with a whole host of socks, I'm not sure that the standard I have for sockpuppetry blocks has actually been met. I dont think the probability of this account being related to other Icewhiz is equal to that of the accounts being unrelated combined with the behavioral evidence is enough to block as Icewhiz. I do think the EC status was gamed, but Ive thought that about a bunch of accounts and been shot down when Ive questioned it before. If it were up to me, Id unblock and revoke EC status and let the editor make 500 substantive edits elsewhere to regain it. As far as topic bans, if it isnt Icewhiz or Yaniv there is no reason to t-ban the account. Right is right and fair is fair here, either this editor is blocked as a sock of a banned user or they are unblocked because they are not believed to be a sock of a banned user, and in the latter case they shouldnt be treated as though they still maybe kinda sorta might be with a topic ban. nableezy - 23:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Nableezy - Trust me. The current plea text is likely authored by Yaniv, but the account has been set up by Icewhiz. Don't feel bad about this one. I appreciate your integrity, by the way. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Nableezy - Do you remember this of Yaniv?:

  please copy my appeal/review request over to AN -->[72]

  Do it for me, please..-->[73]

  And look at Free1Soul now:

  Copy my appeal to AN.. -->[74]

  Please, please, please someone copy to..-->[75]

  You copied Yaniv's appeal the last time around too -->[76] :-) GizzyCatBella🍁 02:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I've a very high regard for GizzyCatBella's sleuthing in this area. Nableezy's argument nonetheless is solid, and above all, fair. It's embarrassing the intensity of socking in this area from, it seems, three distinct but perhaps formally or informally connected persons or groups - as we are obliged to cope with that abuse, the impression, or collateral damage, is that fixing the problem creates an appearance of editors like us 'grouping' against the 'other side' mechanically, a kind of mirroring of the very practices we deplore. Nableezy's caution is in that sense obligatory. My only problem with it is that Free1Soul stated on his page that:-

I was at a Wikipedia workshop in my town over a year ago where the instructor was very angry at some Wikipedia editors but also brought up some useful editing tips.'

It is hard not to read that as an admission of a kind of socking, perhaps unwitting. We know since at least 2009/2011 that Israel or groups within the territories formally organizes 'workshops' designed to train people to push a national or settler agenda, and many people, since mostly blocked for poor practices, flowed in over the years. Free1Soul states that his mentor was upset at a group of wiki editors (probably the usual scoundrels among us denounced repeatedly on blogs and hate sites) and picked up a tip or two how to edit (the quick 'a=an' gambit to mechanize jumping over 500/30 qualification bar?) Aside from this disconcerting picture, forgivable for its naivity, that admission only makes one wonder about the 'instructor', a Yaniv or any number of instructors schooling people to defend their country or its perceived interests by teaching tricks. We certainly need capable Israeli editors (two at least are around who are brilliant, but undramatic - and what marks them out is that, while they may share some general patriotic values with socks, they are, and this is the difference, article builders, whose work shows detailed curiosity about history, and an intense willingness to read large amounts of material,(most of it unpolitical) to make constructive contributions regardless of the conflict. Nishidani (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I must say; I would be extremely interested in hearing more about this "Wikipedia workshop"? Huldra (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I won't bore the page with a dozen articles I examined yonks ago, but at least this should be familiar. You must also remember an English Uni project asking editors like myself to fly over and discuss Wikipedia I/P editing for a research project conference. Potential coordinating abuse was obviously the risk, in getting to know fellow editors. I don't think anyone accepted that. I certainly did not. Not the place to discuss this here though. (Nishidani)

Indeed. It is just that Wikipedia (or rather: WMF?) often hold "work-shops" in various cities, or Museums, or whatnot; all in oder to recruit new editors. All quite legit. I have a suspicion though, that was not what Free1Soul attended. WP:MEAT comes to mind, Huldra (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, there's no end to my ignorance of the wider world of wikiculture. But if instructors at a WMF workshop could bring in politics, rather than technical advice, we may as well give up on this place. Ahimé.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I would Oppose per GizzyCatBella above. Whilst this is not a CU block, it might as well be one. Icewhiz has a record of operating accounts which lie fairly low, acting as Gnomes and such, for potentially years. I would doubt that Free1Soul would immediately return to ARBPIA articles, rather in typical Icewhiz "upper tier" sock style, will behave themselves quite well for a while (whilst other lower tier throwaway accounts do all the harassing), and try to build a genuinely good reputation. After pulling what they did with Eostrix, it has become apparent that they are capable of making very high quality socks. Would it be an idea to run another CU and see if it can be upgraded to a CU block? Mako001 (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

The user has been globally locked, making moot any change here as best as I can read the organizational chart for blocks and bans. nableezy - 02:53, 18 December 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 RM close on China COVID-19 cover-up

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

---

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

(Note: this is copied from ANI where I mistakenly posted it earlier and the only edit I made is replacing MR with RM. I am not requesting sanctions against other editors and I WP:AGF even when mistakes are made. This is not a clearcut WP:MR, because as described below, these blanking tactics have been used before as a way to censor content in this topic. Gimiv (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC))

Following a bizarre MfD back in June and a contentious Merge proposal in November, a request to move China COVID-19 cover-up to China COVID-19 cover-up allegations was filed on December 8 with NPOV concerns. I kept a careful eye on the ensuing RM discussion, concerned that certain editors who WP:BAR'd the COVID-19 lab leak theory and attempted to do the same with the DRASTIC page would try it again with this page (they even boasted about it in the precipitating NPOV/N discussion).

Following these lengthy MfD and Merge proposal discussions, I was pleased to see the unusually diverse group of editors participating in the MR discussion, as it's usually just familiar names recycling the same arguments. So I was shocked to see Sceptre's premature close with a WP:SUPERVOTE to Move the page, claiming that all opposing !votes were based on mere "personal opinions on China", overlooking all the high quality RS cited on the page and in the discussion [77] [78]. Sceptre then nominated the page for deletion as a WP:COATRACK, implying that they have a strong POV on the matter, making their close of the RM appear all the more inappropriate. Even more disturbingly, several senior editors participating in this new AfD (including one esteemed ArbCom member) are !voting to Redirect the page to COVID-19 misinformation by China, which would give no place for the allegedly alleged cover-up anywhere on Wikipedia. Besides for the obvious concern with these !votes per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, they appear to be part of a larger WP:GAME attempt to override the previous Merge discussion's consensus, which found that a cover-up is not the same thing as misinformation (WP:CONTENTSPLIT).

The closer of the Merge proposal was Szmenderowiecki, and the closer of the MfD prior to that was Zoozaz1, and I found their closes to be accurate summaries of those discussions. Per WP:CLOSE, I am requesting a review of this RM close and AfD nomination, in context of the previous MfD and the Merge proposal. Adoring nanny has already brought up this issue with Sceptre on their talk page, citing the Associated Press investigative report which provides the evidence that supports claim that China covered up the early outbreak of COVID-19 in Wuhan, that was also aired in a 90 minute documentary by the BBC in the UK, and PBS in the US. I have never seen the fact-checking scruples of so many RS called into question over one claim, no matter how controversial. Gimiv (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

If there's anything that needs doing, it's investigating Gimiv, not reverting this closure. They're an obvious sockpuppet, was previously banned for sockpuppetry, and this is… the third venue that they're forum shopping on? Very suspicious… Sceptre (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• Gimiv, I'm trying to actually engage in this, but your forum placement is really dubious. Firstly, you mixing up RM and MR was fundamental - I would never have engaged on ANI had it been done correctly. But putting aside that error, your reasoning is functionally dead-wrong on why not to use MR. Handle the move close review first, at the right forum. Then handle different ones. Putting it here, after you were told the correct location, makes it far harder for you to evade a charge of forum shopping. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, Gimiv did exactly what the other editors said he should do and copy it here. I didn't know what the difference between RM and MR was myself a few hours ago and I don't think familiarity with policies should be required to report misconduct. I would like to see administrators respond to this complaint about senior editors targeting junior editors with stonewalling tactics and twisting policy. This is the third incident of this nature. Francesco espo (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the person who closed the ANI discussion made it very clear that it should go to MR. Secondly, Gimiv is saying they don't want sanctions. At that point, the only thing on offer is to overturn a specific decision, which would make MR the forum. Otherwise all that is being offered by ANI is a rhetorical platform, and that, it does not exist to provide. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I did not request sanctions, but I did request a review that of more than what a WP:MR can provide. Because the RM discussion was closed against consensus, the AfD is duping editors into believing that the outbreak cover-up is unsubstantiated. The AP and CNN gave clear evidence of the outbreak cover-up and high quality RS like the BBC and Guardian reported it a cover-up in their own voice. Will a MR overturn the result of this AfD, and if so, can the AfD be closed once the MR is opened? If this is not the right forum to discuss this problem, then what is? Gimiv (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• This seems like forum shopping to me. The place to have a close decision reviewed, after discussing it with the closer, is Wikipedia:Move review. An ANI is clearly inappropriate, and was correctly closed with advice to go to Wikipedia:Move review. The argument made for why AN is appropriate is This is not a clearcut WP:MR, because as described below, these blanking tactics have been used before as a way to censor content in this topic. While, in theory, an AN discussion may be a more appropriate venue than MR where an RM closure is only one aspect of a series of connected problems that require administrative attention, this doesn't even nearly meet that bar. Based on the OP's editing history I'm personally inclined to make an AE report, as I don't really think the sum of their contributions suggest they're likely to be a constructive (or at least non-disruptive) influence in the COVID-19 editing area, and am not sure why TBF undid their block in the first place. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• The unblock of Gimiv was a clear error. If you look at the editing history, this is a single purpose account that does nothing but cause disruption, such as this forum shopping thread. The account should be blocked indefinitely. To avoid any more waffling, I will leave this comment here and see if others agree. Jehochman ^Talk 01:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  The block reason was a suspicion I couldn't provide enough objective evidence for to keep up against opposing voices. There was no way to keep up the block in its original form; it would have been overturned here at AN eventually. I'm fine with others (re)blocking any single-purpose account in this topic area. I'm also fine with extended-confirmed protecting all the discussion pages in this area, but a majority of users prefers allowing new editors to jump into COVID-19-related discussions with four days of editing experience. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I thought something like that might have happened. Crowds don't always have wisdom. When blocking it is most effective to point out the account's own bad behavior. If there's no checkuser evidence of sock puppetry, nor WP:DUCK evidence, then don't mention it. I feel your pain. Jehochman ^Talk 02:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sory to interrupt your private chat, but before Gimiv and his list, every new editor was persecuted as a member of a fictitious cabal. You ToBeFree blocked Gimiv as the leader of that cabal on a hunch, and you blocked other editors like Empiricus-sextus for violating WP:MEDRS which was also just your hunch. Alexbrn and his wikifriends made up this new policy that a notable topic (look again at Gimi's list) can't be covered unless there are review articles in MEDLINE indexed journals, so obviously this attracted attention from outsiders. When Alexbrn WP:BAR'd the lab leak page, you ToBeFree protected it, and when Peregrine Fisher tried to make it go through AfD procedure [79], you took it upon yourself to shoo him off [80]. When a hundred editors converged on the WP:BMI and WP:MEDRS RfCs to break the stonewall, you expressed surprise and unblocked Empiricus and then Gimiv, and then you apologized. Even ProcrastinatingReader explained that MEDRS is only used as a tool to keep out problematic editors, which means administrators were not enforcing policy, but acting as a *thought police thugs*. When the lab leak page finally went to AfD, over 80 editors unanimously voted to Keep [81], and that should have been the end of the story. But with your bans on CutePeach and NormChou have, the community has lost its institutional memory, and some editors are trying the same old tricks. DGG and Mr Ernie knows what is going on here, and now there are more victims of these WP:DENY and WP:STONEWALL tactics stepping forward, like Yleventa2 [82]. Instead of threatening Gimiv on his talk page and telling him to walk away, I would advise Jehochman to understand Gimiv's complaint, and answer their question. This AfD is a clear case of WP:GAME and even Alexbrn knew better than to participate. We must now know what to do with the AfD once a MR is opened. Francesco espo (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think we discussed my comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Actual_examples? recently, where someone else brought it up in similar context. The short version is that's not a precisely accurate interpretation of my comment, which wasn't meant to be a generalised statement in any case, but I suppose for future reference I know I should begin comments with a list of disclaimers of context, statements of scope, and lists of exceptions before getting to the substance of my comment.

  As for the substance of your comment, as I see it here are your options:

  1. If you think individual editor sanctions (eg on CutePeach and Normchou) are incorrect, ask them to appeal at WP:AE or request Arbitration Committee review at WP:ARCA in line with Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications.
  2. If you think there is a general policy issue, visit WP:VPP, where I note a discussion is ongoing. There you can bring up the parts that relate to policy change or policy problems (I note the discussion that actually happened ended up somewhat unfocused).

  Persistently bringing up historical events and grievances regarding individual editors, some of whom no longer really edit in this topic area anymore, just comes across as WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, especially if there's no direct relevance to the matter at hand, which in this case there doesn't seem to be. Food for thought is all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  • This editor doesn't even recorded 50 edits yet. I don't see any merit in the single-purpose argument, they have insufficient editing history to make that determination and COVID-19 is a topic with broad coverage and extremely widespread interest. It should not be considered unusual for any editor to focus on this topic area. On the one hand I see claims of "obvious sockpuppetry" but on the other hand this editor is still learning about the difference between requested move and move review and the purpose of the "incidents" page; I'd expect an experienced sock to know such things. Yes, their complaints have been a bit disruptive but blocking as an option should only come into play only if such disruption persists long after they've been around long enough to learn the ropes. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    Seven months of single-purpose editing make a pretty good argument for "single-purpose account". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    Most accounts with under 50 edits do not manage to cause this much disruption. Managing to do that, especially in a hotbed area like COVID-19 lab leak theories, should really be treat as a negative point against the account's involvement, not a positive. As for your comment about the editor not knowing the difference between RM, MR and ANI: (1) even if we accept that's true, Jayron32 clearly told them that in the ANI close which they ignored; (2) I doubt their inexperience with venues is true, given that they've acquainted themselves with WP:AE and have over 30 diffs to present as evidence in a future AE case ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    I often make over 50 edits in a single day. I got pinged into this today, I'm not keen on reengaging this rabbit hole which would distract me from my current project, which is single-handed clearing the links to incorrect names. I've cut the number of pages on that list in half but it's a long slog. I think I could be a single-purpose editor on that work queue for another month and still might not clear it all. I hear this guy's argument, it's not meritless. Just this evening I saw an eye-opening report on NBC Nightly News about some brave reporter who was jailed for reports some here deny the Chinese government is suppressing, and has apparently gone on a hunger strike in her jail cell. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC) That's Zhang Zhan, who I note is covered in this article. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I propose closing this with no further action. If a second editor feels the move discussion was closed in error, they can take it to WP:MR. Jehochman ^Talk 04:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I second the close with no further action. The move close is something that might benefit from a more focused discussion at WP:MR. I'm OK with the more conservative approach with China COVID-19 cover-up allegations, as these are allegations that China denies. I'd also be OK with Allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. More concerning to me is that content discussing the plight of a citizen journalist like Zhang Zhan might be redirected off of mainspace. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:35, 18 December 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.

Filter logs revision deletion?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T115530

I was patrolling AIV, and one of the users submitting a report asked for filter logs to be deleted. I agree that if the material an IP tried to post on Wikipedia would appear live, it must have been revision deleted. With filter logs, I have less experience. Therefore, two questions: (i) Do we revision delete filter logs? (ii) If yes, how it is technically done? For obvious reasons I do not want to post the IP here, but whoever is determined to what has been posted and ended up in filter logs, can check my blocks today, it is a IPV6 IP.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

If the log belongs to an actual committed edit, ie an edit which can be deleted, then the log gets deleted with the revision. If an edit is disallowed, ie there's no edit to delete, then Oversight are the only people who can remove the log. Bear in mind some filter logs are 'private', which adds an intermediate level of deletion. In this case, it seems passing it to oversight would be appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I will refer to OS now.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

For the ability to revdel (but not suppress) filter logs, see phab:T115530. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

you removed all my work including with proper citation as wikipedia required

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.

---

trust me, this is not worth the time it will take to read it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I sent an email to info-en@wikimedia.org with attachments email is titled Please escalate this date December 19 2021 10:51 AM I would like to report this incident to the administrator of Wikipedia There is a user by the name of CodeTalker. I corrected an article properly with proper source Citation as Wikipedia required it. As is indicated in Template:cite book The first mistake I made he notified me kindly and I did corrected it. However after I corrected it which took several times because the source Citation was not appearing properly I finally got it right. And through authentic legitimate direct catholic sources Since I am catholic The member CodeTalker has something against catholics and Eastern orthodoxy Is easy to identify After I corrected which I even took a pdf file And screen shot it he reverted every change and without basis he mentioned that it was because I did not placed authoritative sources which is false. Here is proof If this issue does not get resolved I will publish in YouTube as well as other media to get Wikipedia banned and defended by both catholics and Eastern orthodoxy a The topic is called priesthood in the catholic church because the topic is completely wrong. And even Wikipedia there is two conflicting statements One in the transubstantiationwhich does say in Wikipedia catholics we do believe it firmly And then on the topic of catholic priesthood says misinformation which says that catholics we do not believe it which is completely false and I even provided proper citations as you can see in the attachme If this issue does not get resolved I will publish it in YouTube as well as other websites in different languages Both the catholic and Eastern orthodox communities will defend our faith and we will defund Wikipedia and even England, along with Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Mexico and other nations we will have it banned Wikipedia for misinformati You have three days to get this resolved I have been banned previously also for defending my faith If I get banned again I will also take a screen shot and publish the video. With all proof and documentation. 3 days no more than three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.163.254 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Your edits to Priesthood in the Catholic Church appear to be unsourced, non-neutral, and in many places misspelled. Also, we do not respond to threats. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we do. I blocked the IP for a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite excited by this "defund Wikipedia" idea, if only the person making such claims could back it up. I also hope this IP would tell the Society of Jesus that "Both the catholic and Eastern orthodox communities will defend our faith" because I don't think they'd take such claims seriously, either. And, if the IP does publish screed on YouTube, please let The Signpost know because they can only use more suggestions for the "in the media" piece. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:32, 19 December 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.

---

Resolved

Hello! User called "Oushik" for some reason changes the data on the wikipedia page. Link to the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AnnenMayKantereit&action=history) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstackflowju (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Redstackflowju: This looks like a simple instance of vandalism. Thank you for reverting it, but there's no need to let us know about it unless it escalates.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 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.

France

The France article is currently fully protected due to a dispute over the flag of France. There doesn't seem to be any sign of a resolution to the dispute.

Now, I don't like having to have articles fully protected where it can be avoided, and have been thinking about the situation. A possible solution may be this - reduce protection to Extended Confirmed, along with an edit notice warning that any change of the flag against consensus will render the editor in question liable to an indefinite block. Opening for discussion. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree let's let editors edit the page keeping in mind the status quo of using official "Pantone" colors should not be change without a proper conflict resolution obtained. Reading over the talk it's seem all we need is some experience editors to the conversation.Moxy- 21:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed & was quite surprised to see the article fully protected. GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• I like the general idea, it is clearly not desirable to have an article on an entire nation fully protected any longer than necessary. However, I would note that in some of the mobile apps users do not see edit notices, so I'd suggest that in addition to that a hidden comment to the same effect be placed around any images of the flag. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

There was a page notice already in place, so I've added to it. A hidden note was already in place and an RFC has been started re the flag. I've therefore reduced protection to EC, with the hope that in the longer term it can revert to semi-protection. Mjroots (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility issue

Hi there. I would like to bring to your attention an accessibility issue (in addition to a UX issue) related to collapsed sections on pages.

Please consider adding an "expand all" button where necessary. For example, on the page below, one has to click/tap each letter to view content, which is an arduous task for readers with mobility issues or who use a screen reader.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_textile_manufacturing

Thank you for considering this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.223.172 (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

While this is not exactly what you are looking for, you can automatically expand all sections on all pages by clicking the hamburger button in the top left corner and going into settings. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the button you are referring to. Are you talking about browser settings? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It's only visible on the mobile version of the site; the settings that I am talking about are at Special:MobileOptions. Also, apparently if you visit the mobile website from a full-fledged computer then all sections will always be expanded and the setting will not be visible; you need to minimize your browser's window size for it to appear. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

2022 Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee welcomes the following new and returning arbitrators following their election by the community. The two-year terms of these arbitrators formally begin on 1 January 2022:

• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cabayi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Donald Albury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Enterprisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Izno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wugapodes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive the checkuser and oversight permissions.

We also thank our outgoing colleagues whose terms end on 31 December 2021:

• Casliber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Fuchs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SoWhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2021 at their own request:

  CheckUser: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy

  Oversight: Casliber, David Fuchs, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy

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

For the Arbitration Committee,

Maxim_(talk) 16:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2022 Arbitration Committee

Offer to "rent" admin account

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.

Wikibusines is banned per the terms listed below. Jehochman ^Talk 17:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Got a message through LinkedIn:

"Hi, Tim! My name is Anna and want to ask you about cooperation with your wiki account TimVickers. I can rent your wikipedia account or pay for some tasks"

(Redacted) Isolated incident that I should just ignore? Should I connect with the account and find out what they're trying to do, or just block them? Tim Vickers (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How much is she offering? Perhaps you should get an agent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You could take this to the WMF. There's some evidence that higher wages can help reduce corruption. Whatever they're paying you admins, they should double it. Firefangledfeathers 14:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Chat copied from LinkedIn

Hi, Tim! My name is (Redacted) and want to ask you about cooperation with your wiki account TimVickers. I can rent your wikipedia account or pay for some tasks

Tim Vickers sent the following message at 8:43 AM

What do you need done?

<redacted> sent the following message at 8:46 AM

It can be some small edits, information update, article publication, removal discussion, article defense If you don't like the article on which I give the task, you can always refuse it)

Tim Vickers sent the following message at 8:50 AM

Article defence may need more than one account to close a discussion, are there any other accounts I can contact for help if I need somebody to back up a decision?

<redacted> sent the following message at 8:53 AM

For now there are not But it can be also tasks with edits or publication where you don't need other people

Tim Vickers sent the following message at 8:54 AM

What topics where you interested in? I'm a scientist, so that's most of what I edit.

<redacted> sent the following message at 8:55 AM

If you are interested in cooparation i'll form task on this week or next and let you know)

Tim Vickers sent the following message at 9:00 AM

Yes, please give me a list of what you're wanting done. All the best!

I guess assuming good faith she may just be confused about how wikipedia works, or needing things written in English (seems to be based in Ukraine) I'll see what comes out of this. OK, cheers! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This is probably a part of the Russian-Ukrainian information war. I, however, can't find the (Redacted) among Ukranian names. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

My guess is probably not. Ukrainian government indeed expressed very explicit interest in re-writing Wikipedia, but we have so many users who would do it for free just to support the national idea (and in fact we have plenty of users who are only doing this and nothing else) that I do not see why paying for an admin account is needed. Seems more likely some commercial promotion, not necessarily Ukraine-related.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) is an undoubtedly Ukrainian name.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have serious doubts that someone would want to have administrator privileges simply for promotional purposes. Let's see what happen. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You never know, since autopatrolled (was) admin toolkit and NPR still is; could be used to slip spam through. I don't remember an incident involving an admin account being used for spamming, although I do remember a couple incidents involving autopatrolled/new page reviewer. Hog Farm _Talk 15:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think they are most interested in AfD closing.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

They might not realise I'm an admin, they didn't mention using the tools in that chat discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Following her links on that homepage, she seems to be part of https://www.linkedin.com/company/wikibusinescom/ Tim Vickers (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ of that company is making steam come out of my ears. Bunch of @!#$%* underhanded parasites. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I got this request to "rent your wikipedia account" as well, sent by email earlier today. The initial request was more or less the same vague wording as Tim's - unsurprised to see I'm not the only one she approached, and I suspect it probably went out to quite a few people. I think the suggestion they want an admin account to close AFDs seems very plausible. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If a good number of Admins have been approached, I have an idea for a fundraiser! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How about adapting it into a Broadway musical?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I almost feel left out that I haven't had the offer to have my account be in violation of the sockpuppetry policy.... Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:46, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Might be associated with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bodiadub/Archive since they list Nova_Poshta as a client and that page was created by one of those sockpuppets. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the screenshot of a sock tag on https://www.wikibusines.com/en/news/tpost/heo7uydt41-lets-talk-about-paid-edits-on-wikipedia, fairly sure that's who we're dealing with. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 18:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Bodiadub is Wikibusines. It's great that they provided an official confirmation. See m:Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/Wikibusiness for more information. MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Parimatch looks like one of theirs. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Did they mention how much they're willing to pay? Would they pay extra for +CU? Asking for a friend... ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How much would you charge to block a few people I don't get on well with? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Surely the price will depend on whom... 😏 -- TNT (talk • she/they) 20:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Would anybody be surprised to discover that unblock.me is already registered? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

As a note, the company website claims that it works in "partnership" with Wikimedia Ukraine. Is this true? I'd be somewhat suspicious that the WMF would willingly allow for a group to use its trademarked logo in a manner that indicates an endorsement of the group's paid editing. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not true (and the claim that the owner is a Wikipedia "moderator" is not true, as he is globally banned), as the Meta links above explain.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if we may need to look at the sources a little more closely. They seem to imply they have some ways to increase coverage of their clients beyond Wikiepdia. Would it be worth while to see if there is a common source to the articles they write, either company or author? McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI. Some of the promotional materials about them on UAnet (paid, of course)

• here you can see Bodiadub and co in the office
• here they are on the list of the most brave entrepreneurs in Kyiv (scroll to #26)
• proudly naming their clients

And they have regular vacancies like Lead Generator or Sales Manager ([83], 2, 3. They say manager needs to be stessresistant as you have to contact hundred of profiles to find one client.

Will be glad to tell more if you have any questions. --Anntinomy (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I also got one today via LinkedIn. Same format as Tim Vickers's post.

Hi, Andrew!

My name is Anna and want to ask you about cooperation with your wiki account OhanaUnited. I can pay for some tasks.

OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Wikibusines and its affiliates

It appears that Wikibusines has no intent to follow community guidelines related to paid editing. Taking inspiration from the community response to Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, I propose that the following be enacted:

Employees, contractors, owners, and any person or company who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wikibusines, its founders, its subsidiaries, its successors, its parent corporation, or any employee, contractor, consultant, and/or sub-contractor thereof, are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because Wikibusines has, as an organization, proven itself to be flagrantly unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards regarding paid editing.

This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that Wikibuisines as an organization is willing to:

1. divulge a complete list of all past and current accounts that have been created and/or used to perform any edits on behalf of Wikibusines;
2. divulge a complete list of all articles that any employee, contractor, sub-contractor, owner, or other paid individual has edited on behalf of Wikibusines; and
3. pledge to, in the future, only edit with properly disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Wikipedia’s content policies.

Individual accounts blocked under this ban may be unblocked by any uninvolved checkuser who believes that it is more likely than not that the individual account in question is not connected to Wikibusines.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Ban Wikibusines and its affiliates

• Support as proposer. Undisclosed paid editing cannot be tolerated and being so flagrant about their intent to do so makes a formal ban worthwhile. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Pretty sure they are banned, given that Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/Wikibusiness on Meta-Wiki says Ukrainian Wikipedia spamming company banned by the WMF? Pinging MarioGom who may have more info ✨ -- TNT (talk • she/they) 02:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  TIL of meta-wiki's anti-spam project. My reading of that page is that two accounts are banned by the WMF, though I'm not entirely sure of the extent of the WMF ban's scope. The text above is much broader than a narrowly tailored WMF ban, but a broad WMF ban that basically applies to the business would also serve the same purpose. I suppose a local ban would not hurt, unless the terms of the ban would allow for behavior that the WMF ban would not. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping. See my comment below. MarioGom (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  This really shouldn't be necessary. Status Labs and Wiki-PR were/are rather exceptional cases of incredibly high profile TOU violators where formally banning the entire company was seen as a necessary action. I don't see Wikibusiness as being even close to where a ban wouldn't be an otherwise redundant step. Just my thoughts, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Mhawk10, several problems with the wording. Employees, contractors, owners, and any person or company who derives financial benefit from editing the English Wikipedia on behalf of Wikibusines, its founders, its subsidiaries, its successors, its parent corporation, or any employee, contractor, consultant, and/or sub-contractor thereof, are banned from editing the English Wikipedia. can be shortened to "Anyone who intends to edit a Wikimedia project on behalf of or to the benefit of Wikibusines and/or any related organization is banned from editing the English Wikipedia." Clearer with less loopholes. This ban as a whole may be appealed...to all of Wikipedia’s content policies. can be replaced with "This ban may be appealed by contacting the volunteer response team with a non-confidential complete list of Wikimedia accounts and IP addresses used on behalf of or to the benefit of Wikibusines and/or any related organizations, and a pledge to follow English Wikipedia's policies to the letter whenever reasonably possible." I'm not interested in a list of articles, those can be extracted from an account list. "whenever reasonably possible" ensures we wouldn't block them for unknowingly violating some random obscure forgotten policy which is better than "adhere as closely as they are able to" because their abilities are questionable. The final line about checkusers should be redundant, that one applies always to any ban or block and should be part of a wider policy if it isn't already. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: I understand the desire to shorten it, but the shortened version actually is narrower than the current phrasing. Your proposed way to shorten it leaves out successor organizations, people who work for the founders of the organization in another capacity (for example, should the founders decide to create a new organization that is technically legally separate but does the same thing, this would ban them). The proposed change would open up a loophole that has been exploited before (i.e. Wiki-PR later became Status Labs, but the two businesses were legally separate. The process for appealing the ban is more or less taken from the Wiki-PR ban language. The final line about checkusers is not exactly redundant; it restricts the ability to unban to uninvolved checkusers. The reason for this is the higher standard of vetting; if the company is actively trying to obtain access administrative accounts, I would prefer a higher trust functionary be responsible for unblocks than an administrator who keeps their mop by making one edit and blocking one vandal IP for 31 hours every 364 days. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: I added "and/or any related organization". Some issues with the original proposal: "on behalf of Wikibusines, its founders, its subsidiaries" means its founders are not necessarily affected by this ban because they don't edit on behalf of themselves. You also went through the trouble of naming "Wikibusines, its founders, its subsidiaries, its successors, its parent corporation" which is always a terrible idea. Just create a sister company, you didn't say anything about that! You listed "employee, contractor, consultant, and/or sub-contractor" so unpaid family members are okay. Contractors are out, but what if there's no contract, just a politically motivated troll? Also, I wouldn't go about blindly trusting a higher trust functionary as I learned the hard way they can hurt the community. Instead, go for numbers: require WP:AN consensus or similar. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Mhawk10, even simpler:

  Anyone associated in any way with Wikibusines and/or any related organization is banned from editing the English Wikipedia. This ban has been enacted because they are flagrantly unwilling to comply with our paid editing policy. This ban may be appealed by contacting the volunteer response team with a non-confidential complete list of Wikimedia accounts and IP addresses used by anyone associated in any way with Wikibusines and/or any related organization, and a pledge to follow English Wikipedia's policies to the letter whenever reasonably possible. Individual accounts that were blocked under this ban may be unblocked if the block is suspected to be in error after consulting multiple admins on WP:AN.

  Also note that the suggestion in the original proposal to appeal on WP:AN is paradoxical, that's why I replaced that with the VRT. One could even argue that recently created unused accounts can't be banned on sight under your proposal as we wouldn't know if they were planning on appealing their ban. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This is partly redundant. Bodiadub (one of the early accounts) is globally banned by the WMF, it is effectively banned from English Wikipedia per WP:3X, and stewards globally lock socks on request. But enacting a clear and unambiguous ban for Wikibusines as a company can't hurt. I would call this a high profile case, considering the scale, as well as their involvement in Ukrainian politics. I don't think it's the most concerning ongoing UPE operation, but it would probably make it into a top 10, and it's one of the few active ones where we know the operating company. MarioGom (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. As per MarioGom, clear and unambiguous ban can't hurt. --Yamla (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support I was wondering whether to bother since I think it's been made clear they are unwelcome here in numerous ways, given their non compliance. However reading the meta page and finding out their are blackmailing living people by asking for protection money and like most protection rackets, ensuring their victims got the message, well that pushed me over the edge. I don't know if this happened on the English Wikipedia but I don't care. I'm fine with sending whatever message we can that editors who engages in that behaviour are completely unwelcome here. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support, for the avoidance of doubt. I wonder how much they will pay me to not edit for a while. MER-C 17:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support no harm making this de facto ban explicit & clear. GiantSnowman 17:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per MarioGom - partly redundant, but sends a clear message -- TNT (talk • she/they) 20:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Aside from sending a message, this will give us something to point to when we're summarily nuking or reverting their contributions. A lack of a paper trail is often a detriment when it comes to actual ban enforcement. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Meh. I think folks here know how much I'm opposed to UPE, but I don't see a point in this - we already block and lock them on sight and can G5 anything they create. This is purely symbolic, and I don't think it's worth the time. The only thing I could see actually having any impact on these folks is if WMF were willing to take legal action, but there's a snowball's chance in hell of that in my experience. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support Ban, knowing that it is largely a pro forma measure. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Symbolic more than technical but moral support to help express community consensus that this is not acceptable, —PaleoNeonate – 14:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support gives the company a new award to add to their advertising brochures. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support to make it clear that the community has no tolerance for this kind of predatory behaviour towards articles and article subjects, and to encourage WMF and legal to take all possible steps to counter them.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support This feels semi-redundant, due to abuses being obviously bannable in their own right, but it does mean that it's easier to proactively ban accounts that are affiliated, rather than having to wait for an infraction/clear evidence of intention first. Theknightwho (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, mostly due to the paradoxical requirement to appeal their ban by violating it with a post on WP:AN. Also, while Wikibusines is very obviously wrong, we aren't without blame either. We made life for paid editors nigh-impossible with parts of WP:COI, particularly by forcing them through a backlogged AfC regardless of article quality. No client is likely to accept this so paid editing is de facto banned. We drove paid editing underground, that one's on us. Admittedly in this particular case, I doubt Wikibusines would follow the rules even if we made them reasonable, but their customer base would likely be much smaller if we hadn't driven any good paid editors away. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support. I stand by what I said: the proposal is worded poorly and the paradoxical appeal clause should be removed. Difference is that I now know they tried to frame another editor, so I don't care anymore if the appeal process is a catch-22. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Due to their clear intent of breaking Wikipedia policies in any way possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Although I think Wikipedia brought this upon itself by WP:PAY. On the one hand, we block for COI, and on the other hand we authorize it as long as the editor discloses pertinent info. This current bunch seem like a natural result of our conflicting guidelines on when someone can step over the line as a paid editor. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per MarioGom. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but meh - formally banning them won't do any harm, but per GeneralNotability this won't actually give us any new tools to combat their abuses given that we can already G5 their creations. firefly ( t · c ) 09:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support symbolic or not, screw 'em. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support, no intention of complying with policy, and advertising themselves as able to violate policy as they please. An official block on their company might help to make it clear that it isn't so much Bodiadub that is blocked, but anyone from their company. Mako001 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I'm absolutely certain this is a Terms of Use violation, there's no reason not to ban in this case. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Update

This is what they want done Putting these articles on watchlists might catch a lot of sockpuppets. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

Here is a list of articles we would like to publish in English wikipedia. All of the are were created by our in-house editors in Ukrainian wikipedia: https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restream This page was created by my friends in Ukrainian wiki and then in English. but it got UPE tag in English. Can you please help to remove it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restream

Also would be glad if you help to translate this article into English wikipedia? https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%8E%D0%BA_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 it's famous Ukrainian stylist.

I can prepare more. Just not sure if you can handle with this. If you can, we can work more.

• I like the double agent thing! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • It was too funny to be true. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• The Ukrainian article on Restream was created three years after the English one, and the edit summary says this is a translation of the English article. I am afraid they are just lying.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, and they tried to frame the author of that article, who is also the author of Volodymyr Tarasiuk, for spamming: m:Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/Wikibusiness#Investigation with Goo3 and Wikibusiness. Next time, if you want to run a sting operation, don't discuss it in public. MER-C 18:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Better yet, don't run sting operations. Try to beat a fool by indulging in his folly and thou shall become one.. Speaking from experience. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• The proper name of the other article would be Volodymyr Tarasiuk (though it might be created as Taraiuk Volodymyr, Tarasiuk Volodymyr Volodymyrovych, Vladimir Tarasyuk, Tarasyuk Vladimir and a lot of other combinations).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

(Presumably) Banned user Bodiadub trying to solicit admins to edit

I had a message on Twitter from a stranger in Ukraine asking if they could hire me to create an article. Um, no? Before responding I checked out their profile. The account stopped tweeting in 2019, appeared again this May, tweeted a handful of times, and vanished again in August. Patently a hacked account trying to look real. Anyway, I got them to tell me what they wanted, and they linked me to a Google Docs file with the text of an article about a business called Matterport. Turns out Matterport was an article deleted in October, created by a sockpuppet of someone from Ukraine called Bodiadub. They got the big prize for bad behavior last year, i.e. a WMF global ban. I told the stranger that no, I'd be doing no such thing, but thanks for the info. Oh and you're Bodiadub right? You're banned. Unsurprisingly they denied it - and claimed to be working for a PR agency. Mm-hmm. Tragically, I'd already hit the block button before I was able to compose any suitably punishing zingers for a reply. Anyway, I'm guessing that they found me via Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Dunno if there's anything else to do here but it seemed worth mentioning.  — Scott • talk 19:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

See #Offer to "rent" admin account above--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Threads combined. MER-C 20:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MER-C! Wow, so it is a real company. Amazing. Having now read the above, it was also "Anna" who wrote to me.  — Scott • talk 20:04, 15 December 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.

Disable MDanielsBot

Can someone disable MDanielsBot which is operated by Mdaniels5757? I don't know why WP:AIV is understaffed but I'd rather not keep wasting time reverting that bot when it removes reports of active vandals. 4 hours stale time is ridiculous. If you need a gadget to one-click decline reports just let me know. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: First, I don't see that you have attempted to contact the operator, or notified them that you have opened a WP:AN thread about them. Second, this doesn't seem to be a malfunction is it - the bot is approved to remove stale entries from AIV. It does appear to be publicly stoppable using this page: User:MDanielsBot/AIVStop, though I don't suggest doing that without further discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and with the operator (unless they are completely unresponsive). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I had started Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism but as the bot runs continuously and reverting it is prone to edit conflicts I'd rather see the bot disabled until the stale time is increased. Towards the future I'd suggest to leave it disabled and have admins actively reject reports. If you don't have a convenient one-click gadget to do that yet that could be arranged. This thread is about the bot, not the user, but I'll leave them a talk page message to be thorough. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Many admins patrol WP:AIV regularly; if a report sits for more than, 30 minutes without action, likely it's not the overt vandalism/spam that the board is intended for. If four hours pass and no admin has actioned a report, it should be removed by the bot as by that time many admins would have reviewed the edits and have chosen, for whatever reason, not to act on it. I would object to increasing the time beyond 4 hours as 5, 6 or 7 hours won't make the report any more appropriate for AIV.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Ponyo, if just one of those admins would press one button to decline the report, no others would have to review it. (if you don't have a gadget that does that yet, again, let me know) Ultimately you'll be saving time. Perhaps even more important: it sends a message to the reporter that yes, your reports aren't just being thrown away unread. Because if a reporter starts to think that they may no longer bother reporting and stick to edit warring with vandals to keep articles clean. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A single admin choosing not to act on a report doesn't mean that no admin will act on it. There are some admins who just do a quick scan and block the most obvious vandals. Others will look a little deeper to detect socking and act on edge cases. If no admin has acted on or directly declined the report it is likely not an appropriate report or too complex for the vandalism board. No reports (or very very few) are being thrown away unread after 4 hours sitting at AIV, they're being correctly removed by the bot as stale and unactioned. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• For IP-based editors, 4 hours is stale. Given the dynamic nature of many IP addresses today, if an IP address shows no obvious signs of multi-day use, a short spurt of vandalism followed by several hours of nothing is a clear sign that a block is not needed. I frequently decline IP address blocks that are that stale, and have for years. This bot is doing the Lord's work in keeping AIV clean of dead reports, and should not be impeded. --Jayron32 16:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Jayron32, I don't think the bot considers the activity of the reported, only the date of the report. Special:Contributions/2A00:23C4:A2F:901:908B:4E34:79AD:B676 made an edit at 14:13, 17 December 2021 and the report was declined as "stale" at 15:40, 17 December 2021, just one and a half hour after the last contribution. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I blocked that range, but I agree that the bot is needed. To be blunt, a large fraction of AIV reports is bad, but not necessarily easy to decline. If an IP shows up to fiddle with e.g. original airing dates of TV episodes that weren't sourced to being with, gets hit with a {{uw-vandalism4im}} (bonus points if there are multiple of those without any other attempts to communicate) and then reported with a comment like "vandalism-only account, LTA" or "repeatedly adding incorrect information after final warning", I have no way of telling whether there is actual disruption or bad-faith editing going on if I don't happen to be familiar with the topic area and don't want to go on a googling expedition. So I'm likely just going let it sit; if another admin does happen to be familiar and decides to block, cool. If not, the bot will take care of it at some point. Yes, occasionally that leads to good reports being buried, but the primary issue is with the general quality of reports (which makes many admins disinclined to staff AIV in the first place), not with bot removals. Disabling would just grow the pile of bad reports. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Blablubbs, a helper script could also one-click move complex reports to WP:ANI, would that help? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Alexis Jazz: Misplaced reports are a problem, but they are usually not presented in a way that would make them actionable elsewhere – they might describe a behavioural issue more suited for ANI without any diffs for example. Something like User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper that is a little faster and resistant to edit conflicts might make people a little more inclined to actively decline stuff, but I'm afraid tooling would not really resolve the core issue. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Blablubbs, To be blunt, a large fraction of AIV reports is bad, but not necessarily easy to decline I think that a contributing factor to that might be that Twinkle can't be used to create WP:ANI reports. I have no idea why, whether that's a conscious decision or an oversight. But when I'm unsure if I should report a user to AIV or ANI, I'm guessing I'll unconsciously pick AIV because that's what Twinkle offers. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 02:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• If an AIV report sits there for four hours then it's almost certainly not going to result in a block no matter how long it's left there. AIV often gets reports where nobody is willing to block but where nobody is willing to decline either e.g. because it involves more detailed investigation than the board is designed for. The report linked here [84] says that the vandal's edits are "easy to spot if you’re in the know" (the reviewing admin probably isn't) and recommends a range block based on unspecified prior activity (requiring substantial investigation and technical knowledge). This means it isn't very suitable for AIV. If a report sits there that long without action then consider taking it to ANI or another venue. This bot is performing a useful service and shouldn't be disabled. Hut 8.5 17:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5, a one-click move helper script to move the thread to WP:ANI shouldn't be an issue. At any rate, it would be good if an admin would leave any message, even if that message is just a templated "too complex, try ANI" so the reporter knows why no block was placed, what they should do if problems persist and that the report was actually seen by an admin. Getting zero response and seeing a bot procedurally removing your report is discouraging for anyone who went through the effort of reporting. Maybe a dozen admins reviewed that report, maybe they didn't, but for the reporter it's like they might as well shout into the void. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5 The “easy to spot if you’re in the know” was reported by me and I apologise for not conveying what I meant… The valuable new information I take from reading this thread is that AIV is getting attention even when nothing appears to be “happening”; and if a report times out it’s typically for a reason. Maybe the rubric should explain this, with examples of what makes a report difficult to work from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Levine (talk • contribs)

  Without wanting to appear rude, there there are already instructions clearly posted at the top of WP:AIV. The edits of the reported user must be obvious vandalism or obvious spam. is literally the very first instruction. Bold is original. I'm not sure how to make that clearer. --Jayron32 18:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I was reporting obvious vandalism (IP range was blocked) but nevertheless my request was seen as poor. If editors are (collectively) making repeated mistakes here, and not always communicating the way that admins would like, then how do we improve the situation? Nick Levine (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I have no idea what you reported. Reports you maybe made or didn't and were responded to or not in whatever way they were had nothing to do with my answer, and are irrelevant. I was responding to your statement "Maybe the rubric should explain this, with examples of what makes a report difficult to work from?" The answer to that request is "It is already there." Mistakes are being made because people are already not reading it. Giving people more to read doesn't make them suddenly start following the instructions they already weren't reading. --Jayron32 19:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  While I suppose we could have something in the bot's edit summary linking to some explanatory text, it would have to largely duplicate the advice at the top of AIV anyway. Even declining a report, or moving it to ANI, still requires the admin to research the situation and come to some sort of conclusion. I regularly check AIV because I'm happy to spend a few minutes stopping some obvious vandal or spammer. That's what AIV is meant for. If a report asks me to do something else, e.g. research the habits of a sockmaster I've never heard of, or try to decide whether some edits are subtle vandalism or good faith, then I'm a lot less likely to spend time on it. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad report, or that another admin wouldn't be prepared to block. Hut 8.5 19:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  I support keeping MDanielsBot, but it might be even more useful if it could understand rangeblocks. in User:Hut 8.5's example of a correctly-removed report, I notice that the 17:40 removal of the report happened after the /26 range had actually been rangeblocked for one month at 15:28 by a responding admin, User:Nick Moyes. MDanielsBot removed the report as stale since it did not notice that a rangeblock had already been applied. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

  There are other bots which remove reports where the user has been blocked and they do understand rangeblocks. Not sure why they didn't pick up on that one. Hut 8.5 20:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Manually declining AIV reports is an unpleasant task.^[85][86][87] People project their unhappiness onto the declining editor even when that editor is a bot.^[88] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, that first case (first two links) should have been acted upon somehow. Possibly with a 24 hour block if that would have been needed to get the user's attention so they start to communicate. Begoon went too far, but not without reason. No wonder they got irritated. I also get DuncanHill's frustration from the third link. If you report something but the backlog or response time is so long it'll be completely irrelevant by the time it gets handled, why waste time reporting? (I'm not sure what the backlog currently or at that moment is/was, but I assume you would have mentioned it if their assessment was incorrect) The fourth link is rather unoriginal as you're just linking this discussion. You can't understand why people who take the effort to file reports (we're all unpaid here) get annoyed when their report gets thrown out by a seemingly overzealous bot without any indication that anyone ever looked at it? I wasn't unhappy because reports were declined, I was unhappy because reports were declined by a bot that couldn't have determined the merit of the request. If User:MusikAnimal/responseHelper is the best thing you have at least there's a lot of room for improvement. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There are many AIV reports that describe actual issues that need to be acted upon, and especially since the first linked experience, I'm actually doing so very often. Instead of declining reports that should have been made at a different noticeboard, I usually deal with them as if they had been written on the correct page. Yet if a report is removed after hours of no reaction, the probability of multiple administrators having ignored the report is close to 100%. In most cases, you can see other reports being answered in the meantime. In your example, if I see correctly, this has happened as well ([89][90]). Removing a report from AIV after hours of no action is usually a correct "wrong noticeboard" response, and the unwillingness of individual administrators to make that decision is just as understandable as the frustration about the automated removal.

So to address the original request, four hours are usually fine and the bot shouldn't be deactivated. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) ToBeFree Thanks for telling me that you were quoting me here. Oh, you didn't. I'd much rather Admins did explicitly decline reports of LTA and Block evasion, as you did, instead of leaving them for the bot to dump, as a couple of others do. There have been a couple of occasions where I've got a quicker response (or indeed the only response) by making a note on one of my subpages than by reporting at AIV. One suggestion I made to you in relation to that link was that if you didn't know, or weren't sure, what a report of LTA & block evasion was about, then you could try asking the reporting editor. I think I'm right in recalling that you thanked me for it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for using me as an example on this board and not alerting me that you had done so too... On a positive note, if you have actually changed your approach on the strength of that then that is a good thing, I guess. It won't change the fact that your behaviour there (and the obnoxious, dismissive closure of that complaint by Bbb23) was a significant "straw breaking the camel's back" towards the fact that I haven't significantly edited since, but if it helps others then that might be nice in the long run. Begoon 13:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

OMG, a Begoon sighting! El_C 13:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

You just never know when I'm watching... :) Begoon 13:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't want to drag you back into this, so I avoided pings and notifications. All I wanted to show is that declining AIV reports is an unpleasant task. That's subjective, of course, so I've provided links of situations that were unpleasant to me. These two came to mind immediately. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The best way not to "drag me back into something" would have been not to mention it at all. That doesn't mean you can't, and if you thought it was a good example of what you did wrong in the past, and some shining light on your path to becoming a better admin, then that's cool - but I always prefer to be notified when I'm discussed, particularly in such a visible place, and even more particularly when it's self-evidently something I felt very strongly about - just for your future reference. Begoon 13:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Understandable; okay. As far as I remember, this was the only time I've pointed towards the 2019 discussion here, so you haven't missed similar discussions in the past. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad that's "understandable". I hope it can be yet another contribution I have made to your consideration of your future behaviour. You will, of course, receive no invoice for this freely offered guidance. :) Begoon 14:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: If you don't want to drag me back into something, don't come to this board and post an edit of mine as an example of something you don't like. If it's bad enough, in your opinion, to warrant mentioning here then notify me. If I'm not worth notifying, then don't post it. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Amen. Begoon 16:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Set the bot at a 24-hr stale time. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you have some logic behind that recommendation, involving some analysis of what would be too long, or not long enough, or some other reason to suggest that specific number? Begoon 16:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Should give administrators enough time to go over IP vandalism reports. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, ok then, no logic or real basis, just what you think might be a good idea. You do seem to make a lot of these throwaway comments on noticeboards - don't you think they might be more valuable if more solidly based? Begoon 16:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Do it your way, then. My 24-hr suggestion, still stands. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course it does. Discussion is hard. Knee-jerk one-liners are easy, as you would know. Begoon 17:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

(QED: Declining AIV reports is an unpleasant task. Even discussing this issue leads to unnecessarily heated conversation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

No. That's not what this discussion proves at all. Your self-serving "QED" is not a good look.

You've shown a glimmer of hope that you might understand the problem on some level. Don't spoil that impression now. Begoon 17:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea, and I do not think we have consensus for 24h in this discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

It was a suggestion. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

What was? Begoon 18:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, we could make it 12-hrs. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

We have a selection an administrators in this thread active at AIV. I am another one. All of us say that 4h is sufficient. Irrespectively of the time zone, if the report was not acted upon within 4h, the chances it will be acted upon are really low, the report likely does not address direct vandalism, and the behavior is not on the type any AIV admin could easily make a decision about. In this situation, 12h would only make a long queue of reports and make it actually more difficult for admins to act on these which require immediate attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The general logic behind a period of 24 hours for things like this is that anyone who checks in daily, regardless of timezone, has a chance to spot it. In that sense it's not unreasonable, but in this particular case it potentially results in a page that's too long. But it's always wise to consider all options. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:21, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but this is just stupid. Yo: if no admin has actioned your report after 4 hours, then no admin will action your report. Extending it to 12 hours or 24 won't change the result. Nobody is actually mad about the bot removing stale reports, they're mad that no admins are actioning them. That's not the bot's fault. The only reason to extend the bot past 4 hours is if it can be shown that, had the report stayed longer than 4 hours, an admin would have actioned it. But of course that's not the case, not at all. If anything, the bot could probably be cut down to 2 hours with the same results. Also, if you consider an AIV report to be a "waste of time" unless it results in a block, then stop making AIV reports. It's not a game where you keep score. If the vandalism has stopped, there is no reason to block anyone. So if you make a report and there is no more vandalism and no one gets blocked, EVERYONE WINS! And if the vandalism stops without your report getting actioned, then that means your report was not necessary to prevent disruption in the first place. Learn the lesson. Levivich 19:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would personally not go to 2h, there are long vandalism sprees, and during the American night there are less admins at AIV than now.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ymblanter is correct. There is a sweet spot - roughly between midnight and 3am (Utc -7 my time) - where US admins are asleep and UK Europe admins aren't on WikiP yet where I've seen vandalism sprees go on for an hour or more. IMO 2 hours is too short but 12 to 24 hours is far too long. MarnetteD|Talk 21:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we don't have a good place to report long-term low-edit-rate vandals. Consider this scenario: IP 42.42.42.42 has been making, on average, two disruptive per week, for the last six months. The nature of the edits makes it obvious that there's been one person behind the IP the whole time. They've received dozens of warnings. At the time you notice this, they haven't edited in 24 hours. But a six-month block could prevent about 50 more edits. Where to request the block?

• WP:AIV? But they haven't edited "recently", and it's not "urgent" by any means. Your report could be ignored for a whole day and it's unlikely that that single edit will be made.
• WP:ANI? Sure, but that gives the vandal more attention. And someone in bad mood could see your report, and start shouting "WP:BOOMERANG! WP:BOOMERANG! for the lulz.
• An individual admin's talk page? Might work, but you'll probably pick the one who just set off on a six-week mountain climbing expedition.

I do what most people do, and use AIV anyway. But that's not what AIV is really for; there just isn't a better alternative. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

True, definitely. Though: Long-term low-edit-rate static IP vandals only seem to be a small subset of declinable AIV reports. They're also among the least difficult to handle for administrators who do handle declinable reports. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You shouldn't be declining to block vandals. DuncanHill (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The idea behind not blindly blocking IP addresses months after their last vandalism is that IP addresses are not statically mapped to people, and that blocks should be preventative. Over time, the probability of collateral damage increases; you might block an entirely different person or an ex-vandal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about blindly blocking anyone, the point related to IPs that are only used for vandalism. Still, good to know you can see what I've posted here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

A dynamic IP remains dynamic regardless of whether it's only used for vandalism. If you want to prove your case, show us examples where a report was made, it was not actioned, it was removed by the bot, and then the account (ip or registered or whatever) continued to vandalize. Show me that happening multiple times in a week and I'd change my mind. I don't believe it happens that often tho. Levivich 15:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't keep records of every report to AIV along with the outcome, perhaps you could lend me yours so I can go through them to find examples? Oh, you don't keep them either. And neither of us is going to go through the history of the page to see either way. As we both know, the way the page works and the lack of archives makes it very hard to keep track of this sort of thing. If someone wanted to design a reporting system that made it almost impossible to keep track of reports and outcomes then they would design the system we have at AIV. DuncanHill (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to convince people that reports are not being actioned when they should be, if you don't even have one example of a report that wasn't actioned that should have been. Levivich 15:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

So what's the decision on the bot-in-question? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Leave it as-is? Seems to have been entirely fine from the start. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. If you are an administrator, you may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if an administrator wishes to self-assign they may do so now. When the change goes live, I will note it here. Additionally, there is some agreement among those discussing implementation to mass message admins a version of this message. I will be doing so soon and including a link to this thread for questions/discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTS should probably be updated to reflect this change. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well there's a page I didn't know existed. Looks like Joe has updated it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

For some reason, the notice that went out didn't have your username on it. So, I was left wondering who or what committee was sending out this news. But it directs people here so I found out. Looks like another discussion I heard about after it was over! This should probably be added to the next Admin's Newsletter for (oh, my) January. 2022, here already. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz yeah I intentionally signed it with five tildes. That said, if you edit there is an html comment showing who sent an MMS if you're ever curious. As for the newsletter I believe someone Tol already took care of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been (re)-granted it at WP:PERM/A, there may be others like me who don't feel comfortable self-assigning, so I would recommend that that page be given a little extra attention as there may be an elevated volume of requests related to sysops. Unless, of course, there's not many besides me with qualms about self-assigning. Hog Farm _Talk 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will note that I granted it to people on this list of admins who had autopatrol before +sysop who hadn't already self-granted. I figured you and Eddie would not be the only two reluctant to self-grant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I had no qualms at all about self-granting this, and I see that many others on my watchlist also did not. I'd imagine that most of us, and especially Hog Farm, are competent enough at writing articles that this really isn't controversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also point out that for all current sysops, the community already considered and granted the flag as part of the toolkit, and the discussion doesn't show that the community has lost that trust. I view this change as similar to how we handle edit filter manager for sysops. It's a powerful tool that some people want and some people don't. Not granting by default but letting admins self-assign lets sysops customize their toolkit to fit their needs. If you think you need it, grant it, if you don't want it, don't; I don't think the considerations need to be more complicated than that. Fro myself, I plan to use it similar to a m:flood flag. If I'm going to be making a ton of project pages or doing a lot of housekeeping, I'll add autopatrolled so that I don't flood the NPQ with junk. But if I'm going to be creating a bunch of biography stubs or redirect, I would actually appreciate the second set of eyes as it could help point out areas for further improvement or catch silly mistakes I might have missed. I understand why some might be hesitant to self-grant, but if the community didn't trust admins to grant it, we wouldn't have kept self-assignment as an option. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled should exist solely to mitigate the impact of high-volume article creation on the NPP process, but there's been an unfortunate tendency to see it as just a badge of honour for "trusted" users. We constantly try to explain this to people at WP:PERM/A, but it has always felt a little hypocritical with it being automatically given to admins. So I'm glad that I no longer have autopatrolled, and while the vast majority of admins can of course be trusted with the right, if you choose not to give it to yourself, I think that sets a good example: having another person check your edits is normal in every other area of the project and nothing to worry about. Unless you're creating multiple articles a week or more, you will not have a noticeable effect on the size of the NPP backlog. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The opposite is true, of course, if you know that you do, in fact, make a lot of pages, it's a good example to have the perm. Whether you want another administrator to grant it, or self-assigning as if you are already an admin, then you have an RfA that suggests the community does agree with you having that perm. FWIW, I always thought autopatrolled isn't a big deal. It shines pretty brightly if an experienced editor that made admin would make poor creations, especially if they have been given a perm that shows we trust them to do exactly that. There is certainly admins that don't make articles, who wouldn't want the tool, which is fine. It's pretty dependant on how many you make, whether it makes sense to have it. Even experienced editors who make an article every blue moon is unlikely to need the perm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The standard for patrolled is just "It's not vandalism" and "It shouldn't be speedy deleted for some reason", right? It kinda shocks me that we can't trust administrators to be able to do this. Did the RFC introduce significant numbers of articles created by admins that should not have been considered to be patrolled? I've self-assigned the right. I don't see any reason that every admin shouldn't self-assign the right. --B (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@B: - IIRC, the two instances brought up were the Neelix situation with the thousands of useless redirects, and then the Carlossuarez46 arbcase, where an admin mass-created 10,000+ stubs based on a mistranslation of Iranian sources, suggested that there was nothing wrong with such behavior, and then rage quit and called everyone racist when a bulk-deletion request was opened at AN. Both are cases I guess where you could argue that being able to pull autopatrolled flag would have helped (it might have been able to defuse the Carlos situation before things wound up where they did), but you can probably also argue that both incidents indicated a temperament unsuited to adminship. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the bar is a bit higher than that - it's expected that newly created articles will be referenced, categorized, MOS compliant etc. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The File:NPP_flowchart.svg that many of us NPPs follow includes CSD check, copyright check, notability check, duplicate article check, title fixing, adding categories or tagging {{uncategorized}} or {{improve categories}}, tagging as stub if needed, adding maintenance tags, and adding WikiProject rating tags. Some would argue that all NPPs and autopatrolled folks should be following this checklist when creating articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If someone with autopatrol is needing to check their own work for COPYVIO or needing to apply tags then they're really not at a point where autopatrol is appropriate, in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

I thought this change would not affect me greatly so I haven't added the feature. I just created half a dozen pages while adding sockpuppet templates and they are showing as unreviewed on my watchlist. I'd like to spare the grunt work of reviewing these but I'm hesitant to add the feature unilaterally. Do I need to consult with anyone before adding the autopatrolled back? Opinions? Tiderolls 13:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I assigned the flag. I do not think you can patrol your own creations, so I will have a look at these now.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Patrolled the sic new pages you created today.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter. Tiderolls 17:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Change implemented

This has now been implemented and unless an administrator has granted themselves autopatrol their new pages will need to be reviewed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible strange widespread vandalism of talk pages

Moved to WP:EFR

 – ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

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.

---

Realist555i (talk · contribs)- Just only edit with vandalism, I can see very similar ip vandalism as well. i suspect WP:NOTHERE. Kalu Dada from Thathri Kutty (talk) 15:36, 21 December 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.

Block Me

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 vandalise wikipedia. Please stop me. Block. 2405:204:A228:3498:0:0:13E:B0B1 (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done: Merry Christmas -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:04, 26 December 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.

Lots of spam

I see a whole bunch of spam happening here. Would it hurt that badly if non-autoconfirmed editors couldn't add external links? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

We can probably edit filter some of this, noting that these are links about escorts and other traditional spammy stuff (I do imagine we have spam filters for non-confirmed editors so some additions could perhaps be made). I see you have a request open at WP:EFR, probably myself or Suffusion will look at it at some point. To answer your question, yeah it would probably hurt a fair bit, not least because legitimate references for content also often contain external links. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Username inquiry

• Kneegears154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd been watching this user last week and found that this user was indefinitely blocked by Blablubbs. I struck me just now, after reviewing some of the user's edits, that the username is meant to be a racial slur.

Two questions:

1. Should anything be done about this username? (e.g., remove from logs) My inclination is not to do anything as it's homophonic but not the slur itself.
2. In the future would this type of username be blockable?

EvergreenFir (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I was a bit surprised too, that no one had caught it. As soon as I saw them making edits I reported to UAA and AIV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the actual slur would be sufficiently bad that it would need redacting. 2A02:14F:1FD:7051:A79A:144E:B31:4C71 (talk) 13:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm apparently denser than a black hole, because I can't figure the slur. (And please don't repost it, leave me to my ignorance). RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Say it three times quickly. WaltCip-(talk) 13:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

But not if you're at work or in public. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

And your choice of words deserve a facepalm. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It was worse before I thought better of it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(I meant RiB's comment.) --Bison X (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If any slur should be redacted then it's surely this one. A very few are just as bad but I'm struggling to think of a worse one. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

(←) If this user appeared around any of the article I frequent (Negro league baseball), I'd request an immediate indef. Thinking further, if I encountered this username anywhere else, I'd request an immediate indef. Thinking even further, I would request REVDEL as I believe the username meets WP:CFRD #2, "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material." However, I have been turned down before for this slur as context matters, YMMV. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at their contributions, in that context, I believe WP:CFRD #2 is definitely appropriate (non-admin opinion). Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup the N-word is hidden in the username, for sure. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that I feel dumb for NOT realizing what that said, I've revdel'd per CFRD2 all of their edits. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie falsely accusing and not allowing me to edit

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. User:Ohnoitsjamie has been falsely accusing me of having a possible CoI for using a particular source Programming Insider and not allowing me to edit using it because I'm making most of my edits have used it.

I have explained to him many times on my talk page that I mostly edit Wikipedia for Live+7 TV ratings. These are viewership and ratings for a TV show episode within 7 days of airing. Unfortunately all reliable and professional sources which used to provide the Live+7 ratings like Variety ans The Hollywood Reporter have ceased publishing them. Only Programming Insider publishes them anymore.

The only other website publishing Live+7 figures is SpoilerTV, which is unfortunately a fan-run website and that makes it unreliable. It was already decided against using it in past. I can't find the discussion. I ask User:Rootone and User:YoungForever who I have seen editing shows often to explain more about the situation since they'll know better than me.

Despite me adequately explaining my edits, Ohnoitsjamie refuses to believe me and keeps making bad faith accusations, claiming I have conflict of interest or I'm long-spamming. I mostly edit Live+7 ratings because it interests me and they didn't start being added now. They've been added for years, yet Jamie wants me to get a consensus to satisfy him. Rhodendron (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This is unlikely to turn out the way you want. I suggest you withdraw this and seek consensus for your edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

No you're not going to discourage me from reporting him. The source has been used for years, Live+7 ratings have been added for years and Ohnoitsjamie refuses to believe me. While accusing me falsely. Since you want a consensus I've called people who have edited TV show articles for a long while here. I'll also like to call User:Magitroopa. Rhodendron (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You are required to notify any user you complain about here. I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for that. Rhodendron (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This section appears to be retaliation for Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Canvassing_links_to_programminginsider.com. - MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually it isn't, so please don't say it is. I didn't even notice that complain by Ohnoitsjamie until after making this complain. And I made this only due to me directly checking my talk page without logging in to see if he had replied. I was going to make the complain and I only noted Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Canvassing_links_to_programminginsider.com sometime after I logged in to lodge the complaint. Rhodendron (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

So you're having a content dispute, one party opened a discussion at the relevant noticeboard while you reported them to WP:AN. That about sum things up? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not much of a content dispute. More appropriately Ohnoitsjamie refuses to believe me no matter how much I explain that I'm not link-canvassing or I'm not associated at all with Programming Insider. Rhodendron (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

That's just not true. You replied to the ELN discussion and then opened this section 5 minutes later. - MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Did you read the part where I said I logged in to lodge the complain and then noticed it? The complain was already made or should I say written up, in response to his block warning and telling me what not to do. I hadn't lodged it yet and when I logged in to do so I noticed it: "I only noted Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Canvassing_links_to_programminginsider.com sometime after I logged in to lodge the complaint." Please read my comment clearly. Rhodendron (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:REFSPAM, we generally frown upon canvassing links, regardless of whether or not you have a conflict-of-interest. Your editing patterns (hundreds of link additions with few other edits) gives the appearance of a single-purpose account, and I fail to see the value this ad-laden site brings to Wikipedia; do we need to track Live-plus-seven ratings, a subject that doesn't appear notable enough to merit an article here or even a mention on Nielsen ratings? We should have a community acceptance that these links are desirable before you continue canvassing them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not a single purpose account, let's be clear. I just mostly edit Live+7 ratings, that too sporadically with gaps of days. Many websites use ads. Programming Insider is not rare. Btw another user already explained to you it's considered reliable [91]. There was a vast discussion and many users considered it reliable Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 34#U.S. TV ratings sources. There's already a consensus. If you do not like it or don't trust it, that doesn't mean others should stop using it. Rhodendron (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I already had it written, so despite on-going content dispute resolution, I pretty much had to bring it to WP:AN. I'm also going to say in the dispute resolution that I'll be registering a complaint based on the actions taken at the dispute resolution. This is going well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The dispute was over me link spamming not content, which this is now being made into. See User talk:Rhodendron#Link canvassing. Rhodendron (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Link-spamming is a content issue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a behavioral issue and not a content issue, because the problem here is the behavior of spamming. Rhodendron (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is a content issue and I strongly advise you to withdraw this, see WP:BOOMERANG. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

What part of accusing me multiple times about having conflict of interest and spamming when I'm not doing so and I've clearly explained my edits, is a content issue? The only issue besides that Jamie ever asserted on my talk page was that my edits are not necessary, which was probably the only content issue he ever raised and that too when he warned to block me. I'm open to listening how accusing me of things I did not do is a content issue, since you want me to withdraw. Rhodendron (talk) 18:26, 23 December 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.

2a02:c7f:7492:a600::/64

Everything added by the user operating the range 2a02:c7f:7492:a600::/64 (talk · contribs) is a copypaste from somewhere else. I think this is easier than tagging every page and looking for the respective links. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The range is already blocked by Ponyo, and all contributions from this range have been reverted.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: No, I meant that everything is a copyvio copypaste. The user took content from other websites and pasted them in every contribution. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, I believe I have revision-deleted whatever needed to be revision-deleted--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Close review at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals, please

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

---

OK, here we go. Please will the community review the close of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals#Closed: 8B Admin elections, closed by User:Ymblanter, User:Primefac and User:Lee Vilenski.

I'm well aware that these are highly respected closers, and this is a triumvirate close of a long, complex discussion involving an intractable problem. Nevertheless, my position is that the only reasonable closes of that discussion were no consensus or consensus to begin technical discussions with the WMF. My position is that their close of unsuccessful is not a reasonable representation of what the community said to them.

Although I am opening this review in my own capacity as an individual editor who participated in the discussion, I draw your attention to the talk page of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals#What a waste of time where you will see much more analysis of the close by others, leading to a consensus that this close review should be opened by someone. Thanks for your time.—S Marshall T/C 13:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn The close is clearly wrong and should be overturned. For those who are not familiar with SecurePoll and votewiki:, I should say that besides WMF and its affiliates, there are only 3 communities that actively use SecurePoll: English Wikipedia since 2014, Farsi/Persian Wikipedia since 2016, and Chinese Wikipedia since 2021 (just testing, not actual elections). Here is the proof: votewiki:Special:SecurePoll, you can go back and forth but you won't find any other communities holding their elections there. Unfortunately, there were some misunderstandings among the oppose voters. User:Wugapodes claimed in their long comment that "hundreds of wikis" were using this infrastructure which is not correct. User:Risker (who had mistaken Arab for Farsi [By the way, Arab is used for race in English, and the correct term in this case is Arabic which is used for the language]) had been confused reading this comment of mine at MetaWiki. Unfortunately, some users including User:ProcrastinatingReader and User:Wugapodes changed their vote from support to oppose based on incorrect information. 4nn1l2 (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • This is what concerns me most about the close. The closers wrote that the technical side of the proposal (availability of the secure poll and of the scrutineers, voting guide issues etc) is unclear. They have since justified this by saying that there were other technical concerns, which there were, but it is not clear to me that they understood some technical concerns were simply false. (You don't need to "address" a claim not based in fact in a proposal.)
    In their defence, maybe they just haven't been asked this directly. @Lee Vilenski, Primefac, and Ymblanter: at the time of the close, were you aware that Risker's claim about the "Arab Wikipedia" was incorrect, as shown in this diff, and which arguments/!votes did you accordingly throw out or give less weight? (Obviously you should have thrown out Beeblebrox's—"I have to admit I had no idea that [debunked fact from Risker]" is the only concrete oppose reason.) — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    I do not think I should comment in this thread about the close. It should not be relevant for its evaluation.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Shit, I missed it. Would have supported. Now, let's discuss the actual vote for this proposal about voting. I know, NOTAVOTE, etc., but it looks like nearly all the participants are veteran editors in good standing, and while some arguments are clearly more substantive than others, I can't really see how a support ratio that's barely above 50 percent can really lead to an action in the affirmative. Unless consensus to begin technical discussions with the WMF could be demonstrated among both sides. Not sure that's the case, but maybe tech mambo-jumbo...? Possible, I suppose, but unlikely. El_C 14:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• 72/111 isn't "a support ratio that's barely above 50 percent", it's 65%. And because there are no grounds to discount those support votes, or weigh the oppose votes heavier, I think that's clear consensus, and the close should be overturned to "successful". (involved, voted support) Levivich 14:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Screw all y'all, I'm hiding my shame. El_C 15:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm seeing 72 support to 39 oppose — what are you looking at? El_C 14:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC) What is that ratio as a percentage? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Levivich means 72 supports, 111 total votes (the 39 oppose votes are implied in that total).--WaltCip-(talk) 14:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Ah, I see. What a confusing way to put it, then, WaltCip. Mr Ernie, about 55 percent. El_C 14:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC) C have you had your coffee today? Try 72/111 once again. {{percentage}} might help... Or if you prefer, do the math for 72:39. Protip: it's the same answer :-P Levivich 14:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC) 39 divided by 72 x 100 = ~55 percent. I am drinking PC Organics Black Cold Brew Coffee right now (unsweetened, no cream). El_C 15:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC) I'm going to bill you for this math lesson. What you're doing is 39/72, which is the wrong math. What you're figuring out is that the oppose votes are about 55% of the support votes... that means a little more than half as many people voted oppose as support. That's not a "support ratio" barely above 50%, that's a "support ratio" (if you count it relative to oppose) of 185% (72/39 = 1.85). You see, 72 is almost twice 39, so almost twice as many people voted support than oppose. It's not a bare majority, it's a supermajority. Under your math, a poll that had 100 supports and 1 oppose would be calculated at 1/100 = 10% "support ratio". That's not the right math. Levivich 15:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC) That is incorrect. 1 divided by 100 x 100 = 1 percent. El_C 15:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC) What? Why would anyone go with 100(39/72)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC) The support percentage is 55 percent, not 65. Sorry, am I in some alternate math dimension? El_C 15:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC) I'm reminded of the "solve 2 x 3(4 + 5)" discussions on Facebook which always got people arguing back in the day. WaltCip-(talk) 15:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC) Just do 72÷111 and times it by 100! Forget the 39.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC) I see that now. What an idiot I am. Did I mention I failed math in high school? But I got an A+ in historical demography in uni. Go figure. El_C 15:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• @S Marshall: I did not participate but what is the practical difference between your NO CONSENSUS, and the close as UNSUCCESSFUL? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  The difference is the possibility that the proposal might be re-tried. "No consensus" implies, as it does for many deletion discussions, that a consensus may exist in time with a more nuanced outlook. "Unsuccessful" casts the proposal into the category of WP:PERENNIAL wherein future attempts to propose it will likely be met with "we already suggested this and people didn't want it". While it's true consensus can change, the barrier for re-entry is much lower for a "no consensus" proposal than an "unsuccessful" proposal. WaltCip-(talk) 15:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn close. Whether it should have been closed as successful is not fully clear to me, but the close is too problematic to let stand (quibbles about implementation details should not make the principle fail). A good close should help us find a way forward, this one just blocks them. —Kusma (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Disclosure: I voted in support of the proposal, and participated in arguing on the talk page. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• As a side note, this is a big problem with these RfA reform bonanzas. There's like a million proposals, many of which are inordinately long. El_C 15:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• I already commented on the talk page, but to make it formal, I think this should be overturned. I will echo S Marshall in affirming that the closers are trusted and experienced judges of consensus, so I don't know what went wrong here, but something clearly has. Too many cooks, maybe? But when a well-attended discussion has a two thirds majority in support, there should be strong reasons for finding consensus in the other direction. Instead, we have a brief and difficult-to-parse closing statement (despite having a fortnight to draft it between the three of them) which seems entirely disconnected from our usual methods of determining consensus. There is nothing about arguments being discounted or down-weighted for lack of policy basis, errors in reasoning, etc. Instead we are simply told that "the oppose argument is stronger". The only discernable reason for this is that the oppose side raised "more arguments", which is a novel and fallacious basis on which to judge the strength of argument. Further, the closers seem to consider it a deciding factor that the oppose arguments "have not been refuted" when, for one, many of them explicitly were; and moreover, we have a long-standing convention that if objections are raised to a proposal and a majority of editors still support it, it can be taken as read that they did not judge the objections significant – a convention the closers themselves reference (the numerical advantage of support votes means that there is consensus that less scrutiny is not significant). The first example of a 'strong', 'unrefuted' oppose argument given by the closers (the technical side of the proposal [...] is unclear) is a case in point: as immediately pointed out on the talk page, it was refuted, and anyway, a technical obstacle to implementation (which we only have one person's word exists) in no way shows an absence of consensus for a proposal in principle, which is what they should have been assessing, and is probably why most supporters didn't bother to "refute" it. The second example (an absence of the feedback) is seemingly plucked out of a hat: there is a feedback mechanism in the proposal, and as far as I can tell nobody in the oppose section raised "lack of feedback" as a deal-breaker. The closers heard all these objections on the RfC talk page (well worth a read) and unfortunately have dug in their heels, so here we are. Personally, I see a pretty clear consensus in favour of proposal 8B, but I participated in the RfC, so I'll be conservative and say that this should be overturned and re-closed by someone else. – Joe (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. I initiated the linked thread on the RFC's talk page, so I won't repeat what I wrote there. I'll just add this: If it is not possible to run these elections via securepoll (a point I believe was refuted in the RFC anyway) the WMF or whoever else is responsible for handling securepoll should be the one to tell us such. Calidum 15:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Since there is some discussion here about non technical reasons this may have failed, I'll reiterate what I said on the RFC talk page. Among the other reasons cited was a "drop in support due to the secret ballot nature," an apparent reference to arb com elections. As far as I can tell, this argument was raised by one user (or maybe two) who didn't even cite actual evidence of this. A quick look at recent arbcom election results will show most candidates get at least 60% percent these days, and maybe half get two-thirds support (I of all people managed nearly 55% in 2016). Also cited by the close is opposition due to "absence of the feedback to both successful and unsuccessful candidates," but that is a feature, not a bug, and is meant to address the community's findings in the initial stage of this process as evidenced by Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Proposals#Issues_identified Calidum 16:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved, I voted against). As noted in the introduction, this was a panel close by three respected and independent admins who were assessing the arguments made in the discussion. As much as proposers were at pains to point out that this wasn't replacing the old-style RFA but was additional to it, this was clearly still a very big change to the operation of the project and (from my biased perspective) I do think the closers were right to deem the proposal unsuccessful. If this were a run-of-the-mill deletion discussion or an RFC on a fairly trivial matter, then I would say fine, there's a consensus... but to effect such a massive change with such evident and well-stated misgivings from prominent and respected members of the community would IMHO have been wrong. As a final point, please recall that the threshold of support usually required in an actual RFA is 65% at an absolute minimum, with 70% to 75% being the more usual pass margins. This proposal, which aimed to change that system radically, only garnered 64.9% support, so it doesn't actually have the quorum of its own domain.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Your final point is a reasonable argument that the closers explicitly did not apply. (But Wikipedia is not Nomic, and doesn't have explicitly defined supermajority rules for rule changes). —Kusma (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's not a reasonable argument, it's utter nonsense: "to pass an RfA requires 65%, therefore to change the RfA process should require 65%" is a silly nonsequitur, like "to be elected president requires a majority of the Electoral College, therefore to change the rules for electing the president should require a majority of the Electoral College." --JBL (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  To steelman the argument a bit, the fact that a supermajority is required with regards to RfA is an acknowledgement of how important the process is and how mere majorities should not be used to ram through changes that are at least as radical, if not far more so, than a new administrator. If a simple majority can be used to defeat the "powers" reserved to a supermajority, then that supermajority is de facto useless and impotent. To your example, a much larger supermajority than the Electoral College is used to change the rules of US presidential elections. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that if Amakuru had made a completely different argument, it might have been less transparently bad. (Your variation is also not a good argument, but it is at least not ridiculous.) --JBL (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. The closing statement accurately reflected the strengths of the arguments presented. The comments from supporters consisted largely of "let's give this a try", while those opposed listed a variety of reasons that the idea won't work, very few of which were actually addressed during the discussion. But even more importantly, the close properly took into account the existing consensus around RfA, and how the changes proposed in this RfC were not compatible with them.
  In RfA's 18-year history, there has always been a consensus that this process is a discussion rather than vote. Even in the preceding phase of the RfA reform discussion, this consensus was reiterated (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues#C. Too much discussion (should be more like a vote)).
  Adopting this proposal, even while ignoring all its obvious technical shortcomings, would overrule years of consensus about RfA, based on a conversation with a smaller margin in favour than an average RfA and with a smaller number of participants. The closers correctly determined that this conversation is an outlier, and does not reflect the consensus of the community. – bradv^🍁 15:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Rubbish. At a well-advertised discussion hosted by User:Barkeep49, the community has already found that RfA is defective in various ways. A clear consensus exists to reform it and that's why the discussion began in the first place.—S Marshall T/C 16:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    I don't appreciate my comment being dismissed as "rubbish". – bradv^🍁 16:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  There is currently a strong consensus among the only people who matter (potential admin candidates) not to use the current RfA system. (The last 50 edits to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship go back more than a year). So we need to do something. Removing autopatrol from admins is unlikey to change something about the strong consensus that RfA should not be used. —Kusma (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse close: As I said I did not participate but having read the discussion, and the close, I endorse the close as reasonable reading (even if I would not have written exactly the same thing). This is especially true, as the OP appeal sees "No Consensus" as within reason. The proposal itself did have a technical implementation element to it, so it is wrong to now discount objections there. (And that was not the only oppose rationale, which are legitimate.) In order to succeed, everyone knew it had to have affirmative consensus, and the finding that it did not ("unsuccessful") is within reason, and the way forward is made plain both in the close and in WP:CONSENSUS policy, address objections in a new proposal ("Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns.") There may well be a willingness to change, given how poor the RfA model is seen in promoting conversation or debate, as well as, poor in providing useful outcomes, but go back to find consensus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Adding: The claims by some of 2/3 support are not just over-hyped, imprecise math, they are contrary to NOTAVOTE. NOTAVOTE at it's most basic means you do not tally the bolded words, you read the discussion. Those words of the discussion in my view mean the close is reasonable and should stand, but consensus decision making is hard (and it is always a strong pull to want shortcut to a vote), which makes closing hard, and you are not going to find good closers or good closes, when the closechallenge, like the underlying discussion, is now to be treated like a VOTE. And you are not going to find good closes and good closers, when as some seem to argue the closers should have SUPERVOTEd to change the proposal being discussed. And a warning, you are not going to find a better close, if you find new closers at all (we just had an Arbcom case filed, because closers are not as easy to find as some think), that is not likely tainted as a forced vote. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• I look forward to this discussion being closed as "no consensus", and what comes after that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Since extensive discussion took place on the talk about the merits of the close, which probably should've taken place here, pinging everyone who commented there as they may have some feelings about the close: @Pppery, 4nn1l2, Xaosflux, Bilorv, Trainsandotherthings, ToBeFree, Beeblebrox, Bradv, Kusma, Giraffer, Taking Out The Trash, John M Wolfson, Extraordinary Writ, Levivich, Valereee, BusterD, Ymblanter, Lee Vilenski, Primefac, Barkeep49, Joe Roe, Worm That Turned, Winner 42, Enos733, SD0001, Davey2010, S Marshall, Jackattack1597, and Espresso Addict: ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• (Involved, !voted for) I'm not 100% sure on this one, but I do think there is one problem that was brought up was given more weight on the closing then necessary: technical details about such an implementation. I agree that more work may be needed on that area, however if the closure can find that there is support for the core concept (Allowing use of a secret ballot option for RFA), the closure could have deferred details on how that ballot would operate to a follow up discussion, even to a fluid process such as we use when updating the Arbitration Committee Election rules. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• (Involved, voted against). Due to my involvement, I'm loath to cast any !vote in this discussion, but I'm leaning endorse. The additional arguments on the oppose were not particularly addressed by the support, although as stated by others some of them could be recast as features (lack of feedback, etc.) However, not all of the !votes in the discussion addressed all of the concerns, so it is unclear to what extent each point was answered from each individual !voter. Combined with the <2:1 support ratio for such a drastic change, the default of nothing happening should be upheld, even if the closers didn't use that reasoning in the close. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  @John M Wolfson Could you specify which arguments/concerns were not addressed by the support? – SD0001 (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn close not a reasonable reading of the discussion (disclaimer: I voted oppose). For all practical purposes, even though the major roadblock was apparently technical, the closers decided to close this with 'consensus against' such that there will be no work done to address technical hurdles. Their close diminishes all momentum in trying to make the proposal become reality. Claiming technical hurdles is not a valid reason to block a community RfC in any case, see my comment here for reasons why. The closers then said there were multiple objections raised by the opposition, SecurePoll issues being just one of them. I presume the discussion on the talk focused on SecurePoll issues because the other objections seemed even more unreasonable, plus the closers themselves said the SecurePoll issue was stronger. The rest was: Second, there are additional reasons to oppose, an absence of the feedback to both successful and unsuccessful candidates, drop in support due to the secret ballot nature and others. and voting guide issues (!). These are very weak objections, some of which were only made by a few users. Things like an absence of the feedback can be deemed to be a legitimate cost of the process, and the absence of feedback was obviously factored in by the supports when they voted but deemed to be less significant than the perceived benefits of the proposal.
  The job of a closer is to sum up the community sentiment in the discussion. Most editors felt the proposal's perceived strengths outweighed its perceived weaknesses. Closers don't get to force editors to change how they balanced the strengths/weaknesses but that is what the closers here did. (exception is when there is an overriding policy (and thus a WP:LOCALCON) reason to do so, but since this was a discussion about making policy, clearly that doesn't apply). The oppose reasons weren't things that the supporters ignored, they were things the supporters didn't value as much as the opposers did. Those are two completely different things.
  The correct close would've been: there is consensus to implement an elections route to RfA, but there are unresolved details. Fixing those details may not necessarily require a future RfC, because the details aren't major elements of the proposal, but they will require further discussions and work (on the community side and MediaWiki/technical) before it's possible for the system to come into effect. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn Do-over in a broader venue Closes and consensus is a bit fuzzy here. If it was truly only on the arguments made, such would essentially call for an interpretive super-vote by the closing admin. But overwhelming legitimate support, including arguments made for it should hold sway over a closing admin analysis and opinion on the arguments. So IMO the close should have been that the proposal passed. But a basis for a do-over in a broader venue could be that this venue was too narrow for such a huge and complex change. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:CENT advertised, on watchlists, advertised at major talk pages including AN, VPP and WT:RFA... How is that not broad? If it's because it happened on a subpage, I'd note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy/Update and ratification also happened on a subpage. I think the facilitator took every reasonable step to make sure it had broad participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The facilitator did an excellent job, I did not mean to imply otherwise. (though I would have added a month to the brainstorming phase). My point was that this is unusually huge and seeking even broader input might be a comprimise / way out here.North8000 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

      It's not really possible to get even broader input. About as many people voted in 8B as did the ratification of the Arbitration Policy in 2011, noting also the editor community was larger then. People aren't forced to participate on any given issue and some issues garner more community attention than others. Just seems a lot of editors weren't interested in these RfA reforms, and that's that, but a participation of over 100 editors is not mild by any stretch. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    There was even a Signpost article about it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm convinced, plus that is a separate question, so I changed my opinion to "overturn" North8000 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn close Disclosure: I participated in the vote. Initially I was neutral, I moved to support for a time, and then returned to neutral, which is where I fell at the time it was closed. Considering the technical argument has been refuted, I think it was clear there was consensus to further pursue this idea. That would likely need further ironing out and potentially a do-over, as suggested by North8000. What I can't seem to understand is how the closers found there was consensus against this idea being pursued further. As an aside, does the status of this close prevent interested editors from further pursuing this idea regardless? If not, interested editors may as well do that. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn (copy-pasting from talk page) Poor close. A 72:39 tally being closed as unsuccessful is always suspicious. From the closure: First, the technical side of the proposal (...) is unclear should not even have been irrelevant. The goal of the RFC should be to establish whether the community wishes to use SecurePoll (or an equivalent system). Working out the technical details could be done later – and the right people to do it in this case isn't even the community. All that matters is that there should be plausible ways to implement, which do exist in this case. These refutals were made in the discussion [92] [93] [94] [95] It's pathetic the "issue" of voter guides is even mentioned. Are we incapable of holding a mini-discussion to work out what should be done about voter guides? It is not something that needs to be sorted out in advance. (disclaimer: I voted support) – SD0001 (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• On what basis can a discussion by mostly involved participants (who have been pinged in a large number above) overturn the consensus of three, uninvolved admins? What happens if an admin closing this discussion decides to "overturn" the result—what is it to be overturned to? — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • On what basis can any close or action be overturned then? Calidum 17:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    Closes are usually overturned if there is some procedural issue, or if it's clear that the closer simply got the wrong end of the stick of supervoted or something. This close here was clearly a line call, however - I don't think anyone would say it wildly misrepresented the discussion or was fundamentally against policy. And any close of this subsequent AN discussion will also be a line call. It seems hard to justify why the second one will override the first one.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

    I would not normally consider a 2/3rds majority a "line call", especially given that many of the opposes were factually mistaken on top of that. That's normally an easy and uncontroversial consensus to support. Obviously RFCs are not a vote and if the closers can find very, very strong arguments to disregard a large number of supporters it can still be closed as no-consensus (or even oppose, although that would be honestly shocking), but making such a stark reading does invite re-examination of their rationales to avoid a WP:SUPERVOTE situation. And I think it's telling that while the overturns have a glaring factual error in their closing rationale, none of the endorses, that I can see, have presented a serious argument that the opposes actually had a stronger argument - the best that they can say is "let's just move on, people", which isn't a policy-based argument when we're discussing whether a close was based on a valid reading of the arguments presented. (Indeed, I would hope that anyone closing this discussion would disregard such endorses.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  I voted oppose and am supporting an overturn to a close that would be against my preferred position. The integrity of consensus is more important than the end result here. They are three good closers, but they are still fallible and this is not a reasonable close. Aside, since over 100 editors (many of them folks who are active in project issues) participated in that discussion, necessarily any review will involve editors who participated in the discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• I have complicated feelings about this close. I viewed my role as facilitator of this project to help the community find ways to improve RfA. One of the weak consensus findings from Phase 1 is that RfA might be so broken that it cannot be fixed. Yet that same discussion rejected the idea that RfA should be more like a vote. Did this admin elections as an alternative pathway thread that needle because it's not changing RfA (which remains an option to get sysop with the same proportion of discussion and voting as before), it's providing a whole new alternative? Maybe, but maybe not. I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that there is not consensus for the elections as proposed and so I'm not willing to speak out against the closers, whose work I am so thankful for, on that basis and ask for it to be overturned. But I do think that closing statement lacks the precision that I had hoped such an experienced panel would provide. Either technical concerns received a lot of weight, in which case I would have hoped that a consensus for elections as an alternative would have been found to have consensus just not that propose at this time, or it was a smaller piece of finding that there wasn't enough support for such a large change to such a long-established process in which case the wording wasn't indicative of the actual reasoning behind the close.
  That said, I strongly disagree with anyone who says that this wasn't adequately publicized. I think you can make a reasonable argument that the creation of WP:XRV was outside the scope of the RfA and a weaker but still plausible argument that removing autopatrol was. However, Phase 1 which was advertised during and with the results at AN, ADMIN, RFA, VPR, and the Signpost found a weak consensus to try a completely different method than RfA. So for elections to be floated in Phase 2 is well with-in scope and Phase 2 was advertised at AN, ADMIN, RFA, VPR, the Signpost (twice!), and on watchlists. I have a lot of process criticisms of myself (some of which I've noted above) but the idea that things weren't well advertised enough to find consensus for elections, if such a consensus exists, isn't one of them as I cannot imagine any further measures could have led to more publicity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I believe that it was adequately publicized. (though I missed the formative phase because I was off-wiki during that notice) And that the participants are basically those who took the initiative to join the process at that point. My note above was saying that seeking an even broader venue for something as huge and complex as this item might be a graceful way out of this.North8000 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@North8000 thanks for clarifying and can appreciate how it could be a way forward. By way of background, I went the subpage route for a couple reasons. Primarily, I knew the discussion was going to be large. Phase 2 is currently over 600kb with the talk page adding almost 300kb more. This would obviously overwhelm a non-dedicated page. The second, smaller, reason was that it gave more control over formatting, and in particular would allow for structured discussion in a way that was still accessible to all (i.e. mobile editors not being able to easily use level 3 and beyond headings). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• involved, voted in favor The close is correct that an admin election should not occur without a follow-up RFC, and that follow-up RFC should probably have a "should elections occur at all" question rather than just implementation details. The close is incorrect in that it implies there is consensus against such elections (because of the extremely vague "additional reasons to oppose"). Some of the details (in particular whether SecureVote can or will be used, how often elections will occur, and the type of discussion that will occur before the vote) must be considered as topics of a future RFC. I view the discussion as showing there is consensus that the community does support the broad idea, though not showing consensus for any specific plan of action. Yes, a few people vehemently don't like it, but consensus is not unanimity, there was 2/3 support, and many of the oppose voters were vaguely supportive of the idea. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Normally I don't comment on RFA topics these days because I haven't been keeping up, and there's a risk of sounding like an idiot. But I have to object to a comment above that implied that "let's try something new", a rationale offered by many supporters (including me), was weak. I don't think my rationale was weak. I know that experimentation is needed, and even RfA's most ardent status-quo supporters (not many people these days) agree that changes are needed. I just don't know which experiment will work, but in theory, it should be possible to try something, with appropriate safeguards. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  +1. --JBL (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Honestly, given the community's long-established reluctance to change anything, even in processes that nobody particularly likes, the onus should be on opposers to explain why we shouldn't try something new. – Joe (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Admittedly I'm biased in that I supported the proposal, but I really don't see how a widely advertised discussion with a large number of participants which got 65% support can be closed as "unsuccessful". I could understand "no consensus", a suggestion that the proposal or the technical details needed work, or that the process should only be approved on a trial basis, but a policy proposal with that much support hasn't been explicitly rejected, which is what that close implies. Especially as a large amount of the opposition (and the rationales highlighted by the closing statement) relate to the technical/implementation details, which shouldn't be interpreted as opposition to the principle. Furthermore in a policy discussion there's far less emphasis on refuting an opponent's arguments, another thing emphasised by the close. If people don't find an argument convincing then that counts for more than whether it's been explicitly refuted. Hut 8.5 17:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• I voted weakly to support, my main hesitation being that the proposal was too specific (i.e. using SecurePoll, time-boxed discussion period of 3 days), and it's safe to say that the details of the proposal ultimately affected the close. I don't hold a strong opinion on whether the close should be overturned or not, but it seems to me that the idea of admin elections as a concept is supported – but the details of how an election were to be run are contested, and in this instance I'd err on the side of passing with the recommendation of further discussion on the latter, although that might be getting into supervote territory... (I have zero closing experience). Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. A better and more firmly-grounded argument than this is needed to disregard so many votes, especially when the opposes unambiguously made arguments that are factually incorrect - especially the technical argument. That's not a matter of opinion; the opposes are just flatly wrong, so citing it specifically as the first reason to ignore an overwhelming numerical advantage is a huge red flag. The fact that one of the closers above is declining to indicate whether they were aware that it was false only compounds this - I don't think this is the time to be silent. And even beyond all that, "some technical details will still have to be ironed out" is absolutely not a strong argument even if it had been grounded in fact, since by definition an RFC is going to generally be held before serious work is put into implementing a technical proposal - nobody is going to be able to devote technical expertise to a project that lacks a consensus backing it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the close as one reasonable interpretation of the discussion. (I opposed the proposal.) As I said at the RfC talk page, I do not see how a discussion in this venue is going to be fruitful regarding a panel close by three respected neutral admins, who were selected for the task in advance by the RfC organiser and did not participate in the debate. Most of the editors commenting here weighed in on one side or other, and are inevitably biased. My view of the close, for what it is worth, is that (1) to overturn such a critical and longstanding part of the encyclopedia's infrastructure would require a clear strong majority, which in the view of the closers was not achieved; (2) the proposal was both complex and fuzzy and most voters wished to alter at least some aspects of it; (3) most of the multiple concerns raised by the opposers were not adequately addressed by supporters; and (4) the number of participants was very small compared with the number of active editors. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. Closure quote: "the opposition found additional arguments, which are stronger and have not been refuted". This is incorrect. The "technical side of the proposal" is not unclear, it was clearly defined. We have attempted to explain this in my 00:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) comment and 4nn1l2's 10:10, 10 December 2021 (UTC) comment with mixed success. Opposes based on technical misunderstandings are not "stronger" than the support. I'd go as far as saying they're invalid, but they're definitely not "stronger". "Absence of the feedback"? Yeah, that was the point of the proposal, not an argument against it. It's an alternative process next to the feedback-rich existing RfA process that any candidate can choose if they like. "Drop in support due to the secret ballot nature"? A good reason to start a trial and see if that's the case. In the worst case regarding this argument, the support for all candidates is too low, noone gets elected and that's it. No new administrator, no problem. Not an argument against trying. "And others"? Point them out in a proper closure. Nothing of this is "stronger" in a way that justifies closing as "unsuccessful". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• pinged here and involved, !voted conditional support I was surprised by the close. I don't think it's wrong, but I was expecting something more along the lines of "general support if technical issues can be overcome, this probably needs further discussion" or similar. —valereee (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• The single best thing the closers could do here would be to strike out "unsuccessful" and replace it with "no consensus". A number of commenters above are quite understandably interpreting "unsuccessful" as "affirmative consensus against the proposal", which seems to me and many others to be an undeniable supervote. By contrast, several people (including me – see my comment on the talk page) have said that "no consensus" would at least be within the realm of closer discretion. Indeed, the "unsuccessful" bottom-line conclusion is internally inconsistent with the rest of the close: there'd be no point in talking about "an additional RfC" if this one found an unequivocal consensus against the proposal. Was the choice to use "unsuccessful" over "no consensus" (which was indeed used elsewhere, e.g. 7A) deliberate? If so, it certainly requires far more explanation than was given. If not, changing that bolded word (and nothing else) right now would likely resolve the concerns of several who have !voted to overturn. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• I opposed the proposal so I am obviously involved, but if it matters it seems like this should be treated as no consensus rather than unsuccessful. It's probably on the margin between a consensus to proceed and a lack of consensus, but I don't think the opposers' arguments are so much better than the supporters' that they would override them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• I advised against this, and still think it is unlikely to accomplish anything. Another massive discussion is exactly what we don't need. I continue to think the close should stand and a more productive use of everyone's time and effort would be a whole new, carefully planned, narrowly focused RFC aimed at establishing support or opposition only to the basic idea of admin elections, with details to be worked out later. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  This would have been an option in case of a "no consensus" closure. A more productive use of everyone's time would have been a correct closure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  We already have admin elections, just that you have to actually back up with your vote with some actual rationale rather than being able to oppose for unknown reasons behind the secrecy of the ballot box.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox: If we try that as things stand, I bet you a shiny red apple that we'll get an instant flood of opposes saying, "you already proposed this and it was unsuccessful, stop forum-shopping". – Joe (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with Beeblebrox 100%. Consider focusing this energy on moving the elections idea (which I strongly oppose) forward via new RFC instead of expecting any affirmative action from this (by necessity) negative discussion. I'm thinking about my granddaughter's eventual run for adminship. "When did Wikipedia start electing admins, pawpaw?" "We'd been moving away from discussion to what we called a !vote for several years, sweetpea. The crucial RFC discussion on a straight vote was originally closed as unsuccessful by three respected, uninvolved and trusted contributors, but eventually a heated AN discussion among the mostly involved later overturned the closure." BusterD (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  The most telling thing here is that those endorsing the close can only bring themselves to say that the closers are "respected", not correct. – Joe (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  Irony is lost on at least one participant. I also did not use the modifiers "serious" "trustworthy" "courteous" "vastly experienced" "competent" "thorough" "far-sighted" "well-qualified" "thrifty, brave, clean and reverent" either, though I'll hold they apply. We do have serious and unfortunate ANI-like hectoring and shade-throwing going on in this thread. No amount of picking apart others' comments is moving the process forward. BusterD (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'll add this: I'm very interested to hear what the uninvolved have to add to this discussion. The involved are certainly having their say and say and say and say. BusterD (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• In my involved opinion (!voted against), the close was problematic. I don't think that the supporters' "additional arguments ... which ... have not been refuted" were strong enough to justify a close as unsuccessful, but I do think that they were strong enough to justify a close as no consensus despite the opposers' numerical advantage. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• (pinged) My two cents here is that this close is justifiable, even if it was not what I was expecting from watching the discussion. To the extend that the closers closed it as "unsuccessful" rather than "no consensus to implement" my hope is that the close does not foreclose (even in the medium-term) additional discussion and future proposals from occurring or is used to suggest that the community rejected this proposal. --Enos733 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn - (supported) - From a quick glance the majority of supports (myself inc) were all "lets give it a bash" whilst opposes were on the technical side - Imho the proposal should've been closed as No Consensus or failing that follow up RFCs should've happened. For some bizarre reason although I'm not an admin I cared more about the patroller right being removed from admins than I did about this particular proposal. –Davey2010^Talk 21:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Arguments making specific factual claims can be refuted and judged not to be applicable to forming consensus. However a personal opinion on the effect of a procedural change doesn't need to be refuted by opposing views in order for those views to be considered. Those supporting admin elections don't need to show that an absence of feedback or a decrease in participants is not a problem. Commenters can validly disagree with those arguments, or decide that it's a tradeoff they are willing to make. Thus I do not feel that these types of arguments should be considered stronger than other expressed views. isaacl (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. The larger the numbers are, and the broader the scope of the discussion, the more we should rely on counting the !votes rather than the closers' opinion of what policy is or should be. For a proposal intended to overhaul a major policy, there is very little existing policy to appeal to (i.e. which !votes might be discarded for violating in, say, an AfD or an SNG RfC), and arguments are based on first principles. The most qualified individuals to evaluate the strength of those arguments are not the closers, but the later !voters. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved). The closing appears to be based on the notion of unrebutted arguments, but in high level discussions like this, where no policy applies, these arguments are not required to be rebutted. Instead, the lack of rebuttal along with the greater support for the opposite side should be interpreted as the opposite side agreeing with the principle of the argument (for example, that there will be less feedback for candidates), but disagreeing that this argument is controlling, instead believing that it is an acceptable cost, or believing that it is actually a benefit (as was the case with the level of scrutiny arguments). As such, there is no basis for the closers, as closers (as opposed to !voters, who can and did judge the strength of the arguments, and found in the opposite direction to the closers), to assess the strength of these arguments, and because they tried to the close is improper and should be overturned. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• The arguments to overturn are not compelling. The claim is that support arguments are not weak, but 18 of them, a full 25% of support !votes, were just claiming that we should try it without any serious consideration of the problems. By any reasonable interpretation of our policies and guidelines (especially WP:NOTAVOTE), those are not strong arguments. I pointed out in my opposition why those are not strong arguments. The closers correctly identified them as not strong arguments. Even if we were to agree that there was a consensus from that discussion, a consensus for what? 10% of supporters were concerned that discussion was too short, a point raised by many in opposition. 3 supporters raised concerns with the support threshold, another concern raised by the opposition (with links to specific examples of how this was previously a problem). Another 3 supporters raised concerns about a secret poll at all, a core feature of the proposal and a main point of opposition. My opposition comment was predicated on the fact that I don't know what I'm supporting if there's a consensus. Supporters are not in agreement on the precise contours of this proposal, and . The main suggestion to resolve this is to have a trial, but nearly 10% of supporters suggested running a trial without offering any criteria for what success or failure would look like. That's not a compromise, that's a fait accompli. This even led to a spin-off proposal to have a trial that included opposition from supporters of the main proposal. These aren't strong or coherent arguments that indicate a broader consensus, it's a hodge-podge of ideas held together by the politician's fallacy, and the closers correctly saw through that.
  That's all without getting to the technical concerns. The arguments about technical concerns being wrong are based on a single support comment (The 00:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC) comment ToBeFree mentions has nothing to do with the main technical concern surrounding multiple votes on votewiki happening at once.) made (1) a week after closers started closing discussions, (2) a week after the discussion was removed from CENT, (3) 40 days after discussion started, and (4) more than a month after the concern was first raised. This discussion suggests that closers should ignore a month of discussion based on a single, unexamined comment made when no one was looking (ironically, how the proposal would handle important but very late comments was raised by the opposition and not addressed in support arguments). The closers closed the discussion at hand, and while supporters would like that single eleventh-hour comment to save the proposal, the closers correctly gave it the weight it had in the discussion: none.
  The correct course of action is to put together a new, better proposal taking into account the concerns of everyone and hold a follow-up RfC that is equally well advertised. We should not overturn a reasonable close in order to force through a proposal that even supporters saw as problematic without any clear idea of what we'll actually be doing. The proposal didn't even reach the level of support required to create an admin or even pass by the proposal's own consensus threshold. I'm willing to agree that a "no consensus" close would be a more diplomatic wording, for all intents and purposes, the closers were correct in saying that there was not consensus for this proposal and therefore it was unsuccessful. Endorse — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • without any serious consideration of the problems How can you determine how much consideration a !voter gave to problems? Just because a !vote is short, or is "per above", doesn't mean the !voter didn't seriously consider the problems. Otherwise, we're going to end up with everyone writing very long rationales, repeating each other, just so their !vote doesn't get discounted for lack of serious consideration of the problems. I mean, think about it: if the next !voter in this discussion !votes "endorse per Wug", that doesn't mean the closer should discount that !vote for lack of serious consideration unless the !voter repeats all your arguments. And if we're going to discount such !votes on the support side, we ought to do so on the oppose side, as well (and in all the other proposals!), and then where will that leave us?
    a consensus for what? A consensus that, as an alternative to RFA, we have an admin election process, held every six months, with candidates signing up by a certain date, followed by two phases of debate: (1) 3 days of discussion and questions with no bolded !votes, and (2) if the candidate decides to progress, a secret ballot for a full week, with voter suffrage to match Arbcom elections, and a 70% passing requirement, to be done via SecurePoll (or similar). That was the proposal. Sure, there are additional details to figure out, but that's not a reason to find no consensus, as this is still a very specific proposal.
    The arguments about technical concerns being wrong are based on a single support comment ... made (1) a week after closers started closing discussions... Not true. "Secure Poll" appears in over a dozen support !votes starting on the second day of the proposal (Nov 1). They include comments like "Riskers argument below leaves me unmoved. If the SecurePoll infrastructure cannot accommodate our admin elections, the WMF should update it." (Nov 3) and "I'm not concerned with the securepoll stuff mentioned below." (Nov 7) and "Risker's comment on technical issues merely indicate that SecurePoll may not be a viable solution as of now. This does not prevent us from establishing that we want to use it..." (Nov 8). These are direct, reasoned responses to the technical argument, and they appear throughout the entire support section. a single, unexamined comment my foot; that is just not the reality of that support section, SecurePoll is discussed over and over. It's true that the most detailed rebuttal was in the last support vote, #72 on Dec. 10, but that doesn't mean nobody was paying attention to that earlier. More editors said the limitation of SecurePoll described by Risker did not sway them, than the number of editors saying that it did sway them. The closers picking one side of the argument as "stronger" is supervoting because there is no policy or other basis for discounting either side of that particular argument. Levivich 01:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • a single, unexamined comment What kind of examination do you have in mind? I, unlike you and User:Risker, have provided diffs and proofs for all of my statements. If I'm the person who changes the language of votewiki (gerrit:734451, gerrit:738222, gerrit:544995), odds are that I know exactly why we change it. I have uploaded the screenshots of all fawiki elections so far (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, cat). You can see that in 2017 we didn't change the language of votewiki and it was LTR (left to right), but in other years you will see it RTL. If I'm the person who arranges the postponement of fawiki elections (phab:T292685#7412256), odds are that I exactly know why we didn't want simultaneous elections with WMF (we adapt ourselves; enwiki does not need to worry about fawiki or other RTL projects). Here are my contributions on votewiki: votewiki:Special:Contributions/4nn1l2. I feel somewhat responsible because this comment of mine at MetaWiki was most probably read by Risker (Movement Charter/Drafting Committee candidate and member) and led to her false claim about SecurePoll scarcity which was resonated by some other users[96] and impacted on the fate of this proposal. I'm shocked to hear that the weight of my vote should be zero (none) just because I was the last voter! What kind of logic supports this? 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Facts are facts, Wugapodes. It doesn't matter how late in the game someone corrected them: we should not take into account arguments not based in facts. This is common practice—at AfD, for instance, it is not unusual for a closer to throw out !votes/arguments because of the closer's determination that they are factually mistaken. In any case, 4nn112's comment was not "unexamined" because it received no responses, but uncontested. For my part, I had the discussion watchlisted, read the comment, scrutinised to see if it was factually correct (it was as far as I could determine) and decided whether I needed to make additional comments in light of it (I decided not, as I was already in support). — Bilorv (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
      • It was uncontested because it was made when no one was looking. Like I said, it was made after it was removed from CENT and while the discussion was being closed. I'm glad you spend the holiday season pouring over your watchlist, but between holiday planning and other wiki obligations, keeping tabs on a 40-day-old discussion in the process of closure wasn't high on my priority list. I didn't see that comment until this discussion. Anyone can show up at the last minute and claim something is true, but I still haven't had the chance to evaluate the claims because (1) it's the holidays and (2) a close review isn't the place to reargue the discussion; I'm concerned with whether the closers correctly identified consensus based on the discussion they had not the post hoc arguments made by the winners and losers. Mind you, I originally supported, but moved to oppose because of the technical concerns. What would have happened if I had seen the comment? Who knows, but I certainly don't want closers trying to guess at what would happen in a hypothetical discussion that didn't happen. If this information was so readily available and incontrivertable, why did it take over a month for someone to figure it out? Why was it only posted after the discussion was removed from the most visible advertising location? If it's so groundbreaking, why didn't anyone bother to ping anyone who would be affected by it? In this discussion PR (who also moved to oppose after technical concerns were raised) had the courtesy to ping over 20 people whose input on the issue would be helpful, but I'm supposed to believe a critical mass of supporters saw this comment and not a single one thought about giving a courtesy ping to anyone? I'm glad you had the chance to review the evidence, but closers can't read minds. We shouldn't assume everyone agrees with everything that comes later in a discussion when there's no visible engagement with the claim, time to review was relatively minimal, and there's no apparent notification of any interested parties. In RfA discussions that seem likely to go to crat chats, participants often return simply to reiterate their support in light of new evidence (compare Juliancolton's analysis of Money emoji's RfA consensus with how this discussion went), but despite most participants being well versed in that norm no one thought to do so? Sure, there are probably good answers to all those questions, but that's the problem with closing discussions based upon hypotheticals: they can justify whatever you want. Closers summarize debates. When weighing a single last minute comment with no engagement against 40 days of review and debate by multiple editors, the closers correctly identified the consensus on that issue. Despite focusing on the technical concerns here, as I point out in my endorse rationale, I think the no consensus outcome is reached even if we disregard the technical debate, but I still believe closers correctly evaluated the outcome of that prong of the debate at hand even if it might go differently in some future RfC. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @4nn1l2: What kind of logic supports this? See Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome, Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions#General_principles, and Wikipedia:Silence_and_consensus#Silence_is_the_weakest_form_of_consensus. In general, a single comment made during the closure that prompted no discussion does not trump a month of debate on an issue. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

      For closing the discussion as "unsuccessful", the alleged strength of the oppose arguments was treated as the most important factor. For defending the closure, the objective strength of a support argument is now being discarded in favor of procedure. Also, keeping the discussion open for further comments was an intentional decision by the closers, and at least that decision was a good one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

      I think you misunderstand what I mean by "Strenght of arguments". Strength is determined by discussion participants through debate which is then summarized by closers. A closer shouldn't just decide which arguments are better and that perspective is explicitly rejected in the essays I linked. The lack of discussion is exactly why it's not considered particularly strong: no one responded to it or indicated any kind of vetting. When summarizing the discussion, the stronger arguments are those that were tested over a month of discussion and which participants came to a consensus on. In any other situation, people would cry SUPERVOTE if closers disregarded a month long discussion over a single comment made just before closing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

      By this logic, we shouldn't evaluate the strength of arguments ourselves – neither me, nor you, nor the closers. Instead, we need to count the number of participants, whose evaluation we trust, to see if a majority of them (oops, 2/3) agrees that the support arguments are stronger than the oppose arguments. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

      According to Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome, The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. [emphasis mine]. That's exactly why the weight of your vote and Risker's should be considered zero, because you made factually wrong claims (you claimed that "hundreds of wikis" are using this infrastructure).

      According to Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#When_to_close_discussions, If additional comments, even weeks or months later, might be helpful, then don't close the conversation. It's not me voting at the eleventh hour, it's the closers who chose a bad time for closing the discussion (Really, how was I supposed to know on 10 Dec that closers would want to close the discussion on 13 Dec?) They could give us another month for discussion. I was all for discussing further. So, it's not my fault. This is another reason for overturning the closure. I was informed of the disscussion after this Signpost message and shortly voted on another proposal. It was only 10 days later that the word Farsi caught my attention and I read the 8B discussion. I'm not a regular on enwiki. I consider Commons and fawiki as my homewikis. As I said I feel somewhat responsible because this comment of mine at MetaWiki was most probably the root cause of the misunderstandings. That's why I wanted to read the panel close discussion, was the 3rd person to show my grievances regarding the close at the talk page of RFC, and the 2nd person in this thread at AN. 4nn1l2 (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Describing the support as based on the "politician's fallacy" fails to take into account all the failed proposals and the reasons that led to their failure. There was no "politician's fallacy" involved; people have rejected bad solution attempts and endorsed good solution attempts, based on arguments that went far beyond "this is something". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not being hyperbolic, some support rationales were literally just the politician's fallacy. "I think our current system is collapsing so badly that we need to do something that really changes it, and this is, in my view, the only sufficiently radical proposal on the table​", "Given the lack of major changes to the main RfA process it looks like we'll end up with, I think this alternative process is worth a try". Other support votes were conditioned on changes that undermine the claimed consensus "as trial only" (well, a trial was apparently rejected so this shouldn't be considered a support), "Support with a week or more for the discussion|Support with a week or more for discussion" (well, if we go with the proposal as written this shouldn't be considered a support). If you only look at the numbers, it seems like there's a strong consensus but when you actually dig down into the comments and preference matrix, there's a lot less agreement on what exactly to do. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Desires for "sufficiently radical" / "major" changes already contain a selection; they go beyond a desire to just do "something", which would perhaps be a more fitting description when applied to the removal of the autoconfirmed status, or my proposal to rename RfA page titles. It is also highly unlikely that any radical/major change would have been accepted just for being radical or major; the proposed solution was good enough to meet the supporters' (not explicitly described) criteria. Both linked comments are longer than the quote: Each of them also contains references to specific counterarguments and expresses support regardless of these taken-into-account concerns. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I continue to be appalled at how many people I normally consider sensible want our administrators to be chosen or rejected based on their offwiki politics, or how ugly the photo on their userpage is, or how unpopular they are on peoples' chat protocol/message board of choice, or how many of the same uncheckuserable sockfarm's articles they've tagged for deletion, without even the current speed bump of coming up with a plausible !vote rationale that doesn't have the same textual quirks of that farm's last eighteen opposes. You all really want that? Because this is how you get it. —Cryptic 01:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • We reason that the current practice is so ghastly for the candidates that vanishingly few are willing to stand. The number of active admins is decreasing, and we now have several admins who stalwartly maintain processes that would fail in their absence -- admins who are single points of failure. We reason that the current practice will eventually kill the project. We therefore need a process that's less ghastly for the candidates so that some of them are willing to stand. We know this is a terrible idea, Cryptic, but all the alternatives are worse -- including continuing with our current methodology. Did you have a view on whether this close reflected the consensus?—S Marshall T/C 01:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, because the current popularity contest where the first dozen or so voters have outsize influence is so much more preferable. Calidum 01:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:ACE works better than WP:RFA. That's the basic logic behind supporting 8B. Or, to be more specific: ACE is no worse than RFA, so let's give it a try. It's hard to cause any harm here because it's hard to imagine any alternative could be any worse than RFA, so it makes sense that people would be pretty open-minded about experimenting with alternatives (also cuz this is a wiki). Levivich 01:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  That happens in the current RFA process. Look at the most recent unsuccessful RFA for an example of the first thing you said being used to reject an otherwise qualified candidate.Jackattack1597 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think you're referring to what's now the 2nd most recent (the most recent now being an Icewhiz sock), but the point is otherwise fair. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  This point of view (and indeed the entire premise that led to the proposal under discussion) seems to assume that experienced editors, including myself, were somehow wrong to oppose particular candidates for adminship and that an overhaul is needed to somehow ensure that such candidates get waved through in the future. That's an extremely disparaging view to take of your fellow editors who raised concerns about a candidacy in good faith. When I oppose a candidate, as indeed I did in a recent RFA, I do not do so lightly. My oppose is almost always caveated by constructive feedback and a go-away-and-improve-in-this-area-then-come-back-in-six-months kind of message, as indeed are the vast majority of such opposes. If people choose to interpret that as "toxic" then that's on them not on me, because my goal is simply to ensure the project is shepherded by those who I personally feel are qualified. I want to see more of these people take the steps needed to be admins, and it's disheartening that so few refuse to come back and resit the test. Of course, I can continue to oppose such candidates under the new system too, only that they'll go away without the feedback element and, as noted by the OP here, with frivolous opposes not struck out as they currently are, which hardly seems like an improvement.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Amakuru This isn't really the place to re-hash the discussion and the benefits / detriment of the proposal, but as the proposer - I'd like to say that I absolutely did not believe that the opposers of candidates were the problem, or that they (or you) should be not allowed to express such views in the future. I was instead focussed on the structure of the system, the fact that candidates feel under excessive scrutiny but balancing it with the actual need for scrutiny of candidates. Psychologically, oppose votes feel worse, and get focussed on, even for those with hundreds of supports, and actually it's difficult for a person to accept the feedback, even with the suggestion that they can come back and improve. Hence the need to remove the "bold" votes, make it less of a focus on the vote, and more on the feedback. We did something similar on CUOS feedback a few years back, after we had a similar level of toxicity in that process. Long story short, the proposal was aimed at not disenfranchising voters, not making the process easier but making it less unpleasant for the candidate. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: thanks for your note, and apologies for rehashing the initial discussion - it seems (as is often the way) there's been quite a bit of that on this thread generally, as it's hard to really say much about the close itself without addressing the underlying reasons! I take your point about bolded oppose votes, I only got two in my RFA and yet they still stung so I can only imagine how it must be if they keep coming in droves. If there's a way to keep the same fundamental system for RFA such that my !vote still counts and I can give constructive feedback, then I would support it. I just can't in all honesty see how this proposal does that. I mean, take a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021. Every single candidate was opposed by more than 200 editors, and even those elected in some cases received the level of opposition which would result in an unsuccessful RFA. What are they supposed to make of that? Where's the feedback on how to improve? Conversely, if some genuine feedback comes through during the "discussion" phase and I go on to oppose with suggestions for improvement, but then the candidate passes with 1000 votes in the ballot, for unknown reasons... what are we to make of that? Anyway, that aside, all the best to you and I hope you have a great holiday season if we don't communicate before then!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Per above. The job of the closers is to weigh the strength of the arguments presented, and not to tally !votes. I believe this was done in a fair and equitable manner, and commend them for doing so. -FASTILY 04:07, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) The idea that the closers should weigh compliance with policy when the entire subject of the dispute is about whether to change policy is strange. "Let's give this a try" is, in fact, a perfectly valid argument in such a scenario. When the raw vote count is this stacked, there needs to be a severe deficiency with the arguments of the more populous side to justify closing in favor of the less populous side, and that isn't present here. It should be overturned to, at the very least, no consensus. Mlb96 (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• As the initial proposer, I was disappointed with the close, which as written comes across as a supervote. I fully accept the pragmatic view - that the discussion did not lead to consensus for this change to go into force, even at two thirds majority support. There were much hesitation from the supporters over aspects, and there was some general support from the opposition areas, completely muddying the waters - so this was never going to be an easy close, nor one that you can simply look at the numerical values. My issue was that the tone of the closure does not match the tone of the discussion - the closure's tone reads to me as "this is an unsuccessful request, there are strong reasons against and weak reasons for". However, in my view the tone of the discussion was "there is much support for this radical idea, though due to the radical nature and technical concerns there is not sufficient support to reach consensus at present, further discussion is required". Although both are functionally the same (the proposal does not go forward in its present state), the close as written does not encourage further development of the solution. So, overall, I'm less of an overturn and more of a tweak Worm^TT(talk) 11:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be much happier if the close said "the proposal almost achieved consensus" rather than just "unsuccessful". I think the cleanest way to do this is to void the current close and then have a new close that can serve as a better foundation for going forward. —Kusma (talk) 11:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mmmh... can't we just try again in a few months? Enterprisey (talk!) 12:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Traditional wait is six years after a failed RfA revolution. —Kusma (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Mixed - theoretical support shown, but also a consensus for certain pre-requisites in any proposal (opposed) - so I get the reasons for overturn. There isn't a clear overarching policy that they were in breach of, so as long as they have any reasonable justification, the !votes stand and should be roughly numerically assessed. That said, very few of the support !votes either countered many of the oppose reasons, or stated that they didn't view them as significant (or applicable etc etc). However, I do feel that it could be considered a barely acceptable moral support for the position, but with a consensus that aspects x, y, z would need to be resolved in any proposal actally specifying a methodology and that proposal would need to cover how they would be accomplished. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvolved) as within the bounds of closer discretion. A "no consensus" wording would perhaps have been more accurate than "unsuccessful," but here we have a major change to the RfA process that only reached 65 percent support, which would be no consensus for a candidate, so it's not unreasonable to judge the proposal as falling short of consensus.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  Policy changes always have less participation and less % support than individual RfAs. Again, there was about 2x the amount of participation in the most recent successful RfA than in any RfA reform proposal. Even the arbitration policy RfC had less participation. See Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported a policy change, which shows it's quite rare for policies to actually garner large participation. So trying to judge the consensus of an RfA reform by RfA standards is a bad metric, it should be judged by the standards to change a policy, and given how conservative Wikipedians are, a 2/3 supermajority is more than sufficient, numerically speaking, to be called consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  This just shows that the discussion (or at least the fact that it might result in major changes) was not well-enough advertised, which I and others said at the time. I only found out about it one month in, because it was mentioned in a Signpost article. I'm sure others were the same. By contrast, individual RFAs are always extremely prominently placed on our Watchlists, and almost everyone who might care knows about them by the end. Also, I'd have thought the patent absurdity of a smaller quorum than is usually achieved in a particular process to vote to radically overhaul that process should be obvious. It kind of reminds me of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which requires a 2/3 majority in parliament to vote for an early election, but everyone knows that in fact the entire act could be repealed by a simple majority, rendering the 2/3 requirement somewhat moot.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  It was very well advertised. The RfA reform RfC was on watchlists just like individual RfAs. The point is that policy changes do not attract as much community interest as RfCs on editors (RfA/RfB/ACE). The quorum isn't absurd; note that the participation in an annual ArbCom election (1887 last year) is well over 10x the participation it took to ratify the arbitration policy itself (~150) (& it's about 6x the quorum of the ACE in the corresponding year)

  Wikipedia:Non-administrator rollback/Poll was an unbundling from the admin toolkit, passed also by a support of 2:1. These days rollback is a shall-grant user right and not really a contentious unbundling. The community is incredibly conservative, so when you get a 2:1 consensus on something which is actually a meaningful deviation from the status quo (a true rarity), it should clearly be considered a consensus absent specific reasons to say otherwise. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn (uninvolved). Largely commenting because some users above hinted that the overturners-were "involved", and I'd probably have voted against this proposal had I bothered. This was a widely advertised and very well-attended proposal. As forms of Wikipedia consensus go, this is about as strong as it gets for "what is the community's preference for how RFA should work," it's near the equivalent of constitutional amendments for governments. As such, the closure talking about "unrebutted arguments" is essentially precisely wrong: the implication of "unrebutted arguments" on a random XFD is when one !voter points out major policy concerns backed by Wikipedia-wide consensus that the other 4 !voters ignored. It's not a relevant close here, where the supporters were entirely aware of the arguments for the status quo, weighed them, and elected to support anyway. Essentially this close says that RFA's structure is locked in place, forever. This is a terrible precedent. Wikipedia changed from 2001-2011, and it will still need to change from 2021-2031. Even if a proposal is 100% contradicted by some existing policy, that 100% has an unrebutted argument against it, there needs to be some way to say screw it, change the policy anyway. SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn per ProcrastinatingReader. (I supported the proposal.) I also agree strongly with ProcrastinatingReader that [t]e community is incredibly conservative, so when you get a 2:1 consensus on something which is actually a meaningful deviation from the status quo (a true rarity), it should clearly be considered a consensus absent specific reasons to say otherwise. --JBL (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• (supported proposal) Overturn to either successful or no consensus. It isn't unsuccessful. A well-attended, 65/35 discussion about changing a policy should rarely ever be closed as unsuccessful, and this isn't one of those rare cases. That said, closing this discussion as snow overturn to successful is even more absurd than the actual close. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. I've gone back and forth on this for a while now, but I just can't bring myself to !vote endorse. I strongly agree with Joe Roe's thorough and thoughtful explanation of where this closure (which was made by administrators whom I very much respect) went awry, and I won't belabor his points. A few comments of my own: First, I'm truly baffled by the closers' apparently deliberate choice to close this as "unsuccessful" rather than "no consensus". Even if I accept at face value everything else the closure says, it still doesn't explain how 35% of a heavily frequented, high-quality discussion is sufficient to form an affirmative consensus against the proposal. That choice is simply inexplicable to me, and it makes me much more reticent to defer to the rest of the closure as falling within the closers' discretion. Second, I don't agree with the almost-conclusory assertion that certain arguments are "stronger" than others: frankly, that's a decision for the participants to make, not the closers. While WP:DETCON does indeed state that "the quality of the arguments" is an appropriate thing for closers to consider, I think WP:NHC explains that concept correctly: closers should discount those arguments "that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and, having done that, then defer to the perspective that "has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". The closers cited none of those considerations, instead simply selecting arguments that they preferred and criticizing the majority for not addressing them to their satisfaction. I just don't see that as being consistent with the closers' role. Third, this is a really short closing statement. Perhaps I'm just prolix, but I – a non-admin – have given longer statements about the title for an article about a storm and a single infobox picture: both matters of infinitely less significance than this very weighty matter. While brevity is the soul of wit, I'm not inclined to give much deference to a closure that barely grappled with the difficult issues presented here. (Indeed, I can't help but note that one of the endorse !votes above is longer than the closure itself. Surely a good closure should speak for itself without requiring lengthy post hoc rationalizations?) Fourth, I do think that there might be fair arguments for a no-consensus close, most notably the argument that 65% support is inadequate for such a significant change. But that argument was conspicuously absent from the closure, and I can't endorse based on an argument that wasn't made. If the closure is overturned, I hope that the reclosers consider all possibilities, including no consensus and tentative consensus in principle. Finally, I did indeed !vote in support of the proposal, but I've genuinely tried to consider this matter thoughtfully, deferentially, and with an open mind. I'd like to think I would reach the same conclusion even if my personal predilections differed. This has been a long explanation, but I hope it at least immunizes me from any charges that I did not consider all of the opposing arguments. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close. It's clear the idea behind 8B has a groundswell of support. And while the supports had numerical advantage, a lot of the supports had conditions/caveats. As a result, it would hardly be possible to have closed this as successful, since there was not a consistent, clear, unambiguous proposal the supporters were all supporting. But it seems there is fertile ground for proponents to address the discussion/concerns, both in the support and oppose comments, and come back with a revised concrete proposal that is quite likely to achieve consensus in a couple more rounds (without the baggage of a 99-part omnibus!). With that as an encouraging possibility, I'm unwilling to get too fussed whether 3 experienced closers decided to label their close as "No consensus", "Unsuccessful", or "Revise and resubmit" or suchlike, even though a more positive wording might have .been more encouraging. Martinp (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. I like the idea to overturn to "consensus to begin technical discussions with the WMF" because it splits the baby, so to speak. It's not consensus to enact it, but it's aknowlegement of the strong majority in favor of the proposal, while recognizing that there are still technical obstacles to overcome. Iff these discussions are fruitful enough to overcome the technical issues, then the propsosal can move forward. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. I intentionally elected not to participate in the proposal review process, but I have read the discussions that emerged there. Closers should evaluate the strength of arguments made in support and opposition, but this is not a blank check to ignore what is quite frankly overwhelming consensus. Opposition is not privileged over support simply because it lists a greater variety of reasons, and I think the closers should have been aware of that when they made their decision. Side note – it's a bit disheartening to see so many people just re-voting in this closure review in the same way that they !voted on the actual proposal. I'd like to think that I would voice support for overturning a bad close, even if it didn't agree with my actual position in a discussion. AlexEng^(TALK) 04:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse (uninvoled). While there was on the face of it a lot of support, there was not one single thing that all the supporters were suporting, and not all of the arguments in oppositon were addressed let alone fully refuted and the closing summary explains this well. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• overturn to NC (uninvolved) I don't know how I would have weighed in on this. But there wasn't a consensus to reject this proposal. I'm much less sure if the right closure was NC or there was enough to support it. But going to NC seems obvious. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn (uninvolved) at least to no consensus. Closing it as unsuccessful over technical issues doesn't really make sense, if it turns out technical issues prevent this, that's a separate issue from whether the community thinks it should be done. Ignoring those opposes, it's even clearer that the community thinks the support arguments outweigh the oppose ones, in strength if not in number. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Call for close

I think there's been more than enough input to this close review, and I think all that remains is for a previously uninvolved person to summarize what we've said and carry out the community's will.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Not after less than 24 hours, no. And we can't take shortcuts in a controversial closure review. —Kusma (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's snowing. Even the people who say "endorse" are going on to add that no consensus would have been a better close. Why drag it out over Christmas?—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not snowing. Come on. WP:SNOW only applies when there is an unmistakable consensus beyond reasonable doubt. While the majority of people attending this discussion agree with overturning the close, there are still comprehensive and detailed arguments on both sides. Consensus is not a vote. On another note, it's not entirely clear to me what you are expecting a closer to do. This was a three-person panel close that was decided over the course of a fortnight. What you're calling for, as Kusma pointed out, is a single admin to overturn the work of said panel based on a head count at WP:AN. These methods of reaching consensus are not equitable. WaltCip-(talk) 13:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not true, that my endorse says "no consensus" would be better. What would be "better" is to move on, because on balance my uninvolved opinion is that within the WP system, this three panel close is right enough, this is not the place to expect more than that. For some of those asking for it to be overturned, they are either asking for something that makes no difference, or some who are asking for it to be replaced with a SUPERVOTE, which changes the implementation of the proposal, as it was proposed. The Closers don't get to change the proposal, the people commenting were not, if you will meeting minds on a different proposal, indeed as the close found, they were "unsuccessful" in finding agreement (see, WP:CLOSE, "Consensus can be most easily defined as agreement."). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am against SNOW here, firstly because the hurdle is ultra-high for SNOW-closing a close review, but also because while @S Marshall: is right about those endorsing adding nuance, he seems to ignore that the same is true of those backing overturn. These are !votes with a very high rate of nuance, not just in reasoning but in what they advise the close should change to. As such, it should not be closed early. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't see a consensus to overturn the close, any more than there was consensus to enact the new policy in the first place. Of course, those who voted in favour would like it overturned, and think their argument was best, but the closing panel didn't agree. I haven't seen any point raised in the review that would suggest they made a major error.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  "Haven't seen any point raised" – You may need to read the review to see these points. The entire closure is a major error; many people have taken the time to explain why. I do agree, though, that closing this discussion too early would not be beneficial. It's perfectly fine to let it run for 72 hours or a week. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Too early. I would agree that if it was closed today a consensus would be found for overturning, but it is far from a WP:SNOW consensus and so should be left open for at least a week. BilledMammal (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• My reading of the discussion is "no consensus to implement". I agree with the closers and others commenting here that a better way forward would be to start a new, better formulated RfC, likely after discussing the technical barriers identified with the WMF. I did not vote in the RfC, but I do feel the technical and operational barriers identified are more problematic than some of the supporters realize, based on discussions I've had with folks running SecurePoll elections in the past few years. My reading of the discussion is that there may be consensus for a trial of some non-!vote RfA method, but again, I don't think there's a clear consensus for the proposal as formulated. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:43, 24 December 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.

Block appeal by Colman2000

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.

---

• Colman2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

from UTRS appeal #50927

Hello. I believe my block should be lifted because I have learned that using ramblings, all caps, and exclamation points is unacceptable and makes it look like I am screaming or shouting. If I am unblocked, I promise that I will not get upset when an editor calls me "Coleman" on my talk page. I will look into changing my username, but if that is not good enough, I will do it immediately after I am unblocked. I will also edit mainspace articles more often than other editor's talk pages and only post on talk pages when I need to or have a question. My conduct is unacceptable and even I am kicking myself in the butt for it. Using the behavior I used, such as calling another editor "stuck up" and panicking is not acceptable at all. That's bully behavior. I have also learned that harassing someone, especially making a false claim against a person, is not only unacceptable, but is also a crime that could send me to jail. From now on, if I might as well have to get a one-way interaction ban from certain editors, I might as well. I will also not refactor other editors' comments as it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. I completely understand why I was blocked from editing Wikipedia (personal attacks/harassment) and I hope to be unblocked from editing soon, because I have a lot of stuff planned for editing. My enthusiasm gets the better of me sometimes, but then again, my behavior was combative, rude, insulting, and in some cases, vicious. I have already submitted an appeal to the Arbitration Committee and they have resolved my de facto ban to an ordinary block, as seen on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Colman2000#c-Maxim-2021-11-15T17%3A00%3A00.000Z-CU_block_downgraded

- Cabayi (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Need details about the "lot of stuff planned". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

(Is 331dot fine with re-enabling talk page access?) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

No objection. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, talk page access restored.

Things I'd personally like to see before evaluating further: a) details about the "lot of stuff planned", b) a removal of the retirement template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

In response to Special:Diff/1060478930/1060504344: Okay, thank you very much. It's been almost two years; no objections from my side. I'm not sure if I can commend the language of the unblock request in all parts, but I prefer its honesty to sugar-coated beating around the bush. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock per WP:ROPE, WP:SO, etc. 3 years is a long time in Internet life, says all the right things as far as I am concerned, reblocking is cheap and easy. --Jayron32 16:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support unblock - The user seems to have truly understood why they got banned and they seem genuine in their remarks to not repeat these acts again. It's also been 3 years since their ban, which I believe is more than enough time for someone to change their behaviour. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 08:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE, and as the feller says, three years is a long time in hyperspace. Out of curiosity, I'd be interested to know why one would go mad at being called by one's username, but that's not particularly germane to this discussion since it has been addressed (or, at least, mentioned) in the preamble. ——Serial 09:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Best I can tell, it’s because their username isn’t “Coleman” it’s “Colman” ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Well spotted, ProcrastinatingReader, so it is; and not being bothered to get someone's name correct is lazy to say the least. ——Serial 17:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support decent appeal that seems to address the main issues with their pre-block behaviour without obfuscations etc. Trust that the editor knows how to avoid having the issues happen again. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:One last chance. The editor has described their plans to improve articles about unincorporated communities in Texas on their talk page. Let them get back to work. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support per above. I'm hoping this user can become a productive editor. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral - I declined their last regular unblock request, after a significant discussion with several admins, because although the user was already showing significantly improved awareness of their issues, there was a strong indication that when conversation was going okay, they'd be fine, but that if things turned negative, all of the misbehaviour would reappear. As an example of this, I chose not to re-revoke their TPA (UTRS had opened it for the appeal), and then it had to be done anyway within a month. That said, it has been 21 months since then. I do advise one condition - a 1-way IBAN with Magnolia677 (that's a no-ping, btw - if someone wants to contact them they have pings turned off). As I imagine we're on the cusp of closing and unblocking, I'd be appreciative of people weighing in on that particular condition. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to an IBAN. Cullen328 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • A very sound approach, well spotted. ——Serial 17:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Support - On the assumption that you haven't socked or evaded your ban, in anyway. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Request for administrator comment on out of scope use or abuse of rev-del

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 page Reed's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was recently semi-protected (Cited as "Persistent vandalism") following a meme on reddit and the likely vandalism that resulted.

The only issue is the last revision I can see before the semi-protection, is a good revision dated 30th of august (and is still live) and the last reverted edit I can see, is from 2018. Same in filter log, last entry is from years ago.

Only the recent semi-protecting of the page shows up in the page's logs, no rev-del logs.

Now, either there was no vandalism (unlikely, the page was featured in a reddit post today, and I doubt the administrator would flat out lie in their deletion reason), or said vandalism revisions were hidden from view (and their removal was hidden from logs). I'm assuming the later, as that seems like the more likely situation.

Wikipedia:Revision_deletion makes it clear to administrators that redaction of revisions requires extenuating circumstances such as legal issues, committee decisions, xss attacks, and "grossly offensive [material] with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal". I can not see how ordinary vandalism qualifies for this.

I'm also not clear how hiding rev-del's for vandalism from logs is in line with policy outlined in Wikipedia:Revision_deletion#Log_redaction.

I do not think this is a covered Oversight matter either. That would be unlikely to be from more 1 user, and one user vandalizing a page wouldn't have resulted in a deletion for "Persistent vandalism" as there would be no "persistence" and also it would make more sense for one user vandalising a page to lead to user action not page restriction.

Why were the vandalism revisions deleted? If that is not what happened, why was the page protected for "Persistent vandalism" when there was no vandalism? If it was proactively protected before vandalism happened, why would the administrator lie in the semi-protection reason?

Is wikipedia going against the established line in the sand on the use of rev-del to hide joke edits or other such "ordinary" matters?

Is there a mandatory 'crat review on hiding logs using rev-del or other tools? Kyleshome (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - checking the logs, I'm seeing no evidence of any deleted edits, and they would still show up in the history I believe. I don't have OS, but surely it would be detectable if it occurred. Frankly, what this looks like is a Wikipedia:NO-PREEMPT violation, as there was not recent vandalism. mikeblas, would you be willing to explain the rationale behind your protection of the page here? Hog Farm _Talk 06:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• It looks like the vandalism was actually on the redirect page Reed's Law [97], not the main article. Spicy (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• That's likely the missing piece! I didn't think to check redirects. Thanks and sorry for the confusion. Kyleshome (talk) 06:21, 28 December 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.

Александр Мотин unban request

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

---

Александр Мотин (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Review request from Ymblanter

The user, who is community banned, posted an unban request at their talk page, but there was no reaction for a few days. They are community banned, so that the discussion must happen here. I am involved and can later give my involved opinion, so I do not feel like I should be the person bringing the request here, but I guess someone should copy it here and open a proper discussion. (You can remove my text afterwards).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

As requested by Ymblanter in the now-hatted section above, I am copying an unban request by User:Александр Мотин here for community review; I have no opinion on its merits. The original discussion is here. Courtesy pings to El_C who imposed an indef, and The Bushranger who closed the ban discussion. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Almost a year ago my account in English Wikipedia was CBANned. Since quite a lot of time has passed and at certain colleague's reminder who recently contacted me on the French Wikipedia, I am sending the English Wikipedia community this request for unban. Due to the fact that I was CBANned for renaming an article about a railway line in Russia and since this caused sharp reaction of the opposing editor, I can assure the Community that possible subsequent discussions on this issue on my part will be resolved in accordance with the WP:DISPUTE policy. And since after the CBAN I did not attempt to circumvent blocking and did not commit any violations in the English Wikipedia, and my overall contribution to the English Wikipedia is constructive, I ask you to make a decision on this request.
P.S. Before CBAN I was mainly engaged in writing and illustrating articles from Template:Moscow Central Diameters, Template:Roads in Moscow and also worked on updating and expanding of the List of tallest buildings in Europe.
P.P.S. And to emphasize that I was guided solely by conscientious motives, thinking only about the benefits for the English Wikipedia, I inform you that I used the File:Moscow Central Diameters – official system map (English version).jpg when renaming Gorkovsky suburban railway line to Gorkovskoye line for which I was CBANned.
— User:Александр Мотин 10:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose (non-admin comment) The user is still not addressing the true reason for the c-ban. They claim it was "for renaming an article about a railway line in Russia", no it was not as multiple admins had pointed out over on their talk page: The reason for the block concerns your conduct, overall, including but not limited to the manner in which you have conducted yourself at ANI today. This is diplaying either WP:CIR or WP:IDHT. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per Lavalizard101. --Yamla (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. After a cursory look at the original cban discussion and other issues leading up to the cban, there seems to have been many sanctions along the way due to disruptive behavior, all of which were completely side stepped in this request. This tells me they either don't understand, don't accept or don't care, and that is incompatible with building an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Utterly deceptive unban request. there were multiple topic bans and other sanctions prior to the cban discussion and Alexander Motin filed a retaliatory de-sysop request during that discussion. They address none of this in their request. They clearly did not then nor do not now understand the reasons for the ban nor the bounds of acceptable behavior. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, for reasons already stated. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, fairly straightforward, this is an unban request that fails to even recognise the conduct issues let alone make a case that they will not be repeated. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - The appeal does not acknowledge the reasons to their ban, their mistakes. I suggest taking more time off Wikipedia to reflect on the actual reasons you were banned and in the meantime, try constructively editing other Wikimedia projects, such Commons or Wikidata to demonstrate that you are still a capable editor. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 17:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor has failed to show that they will not resume their disruptive behavior if unblocked, or even acknowledged the issues leading to the ban in the first place. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:14, 29 December 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.

I can’t create my user page

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

---

It says it’s blacklisted. --Giiants (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Huh. It sure is. Not sure why. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Giiants, your username is indeed blacklisted as a result of some *very* old (early Grawp era, if my memory of Wikipedia history serves) vandalism. I went ahead and created it for you, and you should be able to edit it freely going forward. Just so you know, though, if you try to create any subpage of your user page, you are likely to run into a similar problem. It might be worthwhile considering a change in username to avoid this problem, if you're not particularly attached to your current one. That's completely up to you, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Instead of him changing his name, I have to ask, since this vandalism is older than the platform we are running on, does it still need to be blacklisted? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • An absolutely fair question; the blacklist entry is 13 years old. I considered that, but figured it might come better from someone who was around when it was put in place. :D Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I was an active vandal fighter back then and ran into Grawp regularly, but this doesn't ring any bells for me. I was going to create the page for them but the notice I saw said "This page can only be created and/or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers because it matches an entry on the local or global title blacklist:". By my read that meant they still wouldn't be able to edit it, but I guess and/or is deliberately nonspecific. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Might as well un-blacklist it, don't think it's worthwhile keeping it there if the vandal it's coming from likely stopped a long time ago. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
      • It is deliberately nonspecific. The title blacklist should only block editing when the specific noedit flag is included; that flag is used only in a handful of specific cases (stuff like editnotices), and shouldn't apply here. Happy to clean out some of the more nonspecific blacklist rules, though. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Question: why did this user get blocked anyway? Did it turn out he was a sockpuppet of Grawp? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • According to their userpage, which clearly didn't turn out as they had intended, they are a CU-confirmed sock of a blocked user. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 29 December 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.

UPE with an autopatrolled and AfC reviewer rights

Just found another UPE and, yeah, @Hog Farm: was right on this thread. We've many more. Here is the one, User:Luciapop.
Seems like they have been hired by MTN Nigeria, so they created a whole bunch of articles on all of their managers and articles survived. See below ones (5 in total) and I am sure they are paid (MTN related):

• Ikenna Ikeme
• Omasan Ogisi
• Funso Aina
• Tobechukwu Okigbo
• Karl Toriola
  

After looking at above list, it looks like Wikipedia is on sale now. But, wait, there are some more and this user has avoided scrutiny for so long. Below is some more paid/spam articles:

• Tayo Amusan
• Rotimi Bankole
• Adeaga Bukunmi
  

and then there is an off-wiki evidence. They were hired to create Parsiq, after this UPE (User:Kpunttay) failed to do it properly, PARSIQ. Both were hired on this job post (another relevant link).
Then there is some deleted spam:

• Marco Canolintas
• Ken Dumbo (@Bbb23:: may know more as there are string of UPEs at work here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Dumbo)
  

I am also suspicious that following are also paid, but not sure. Maybe an experienced person should have a look:

• James_Rochford
• Victory_Obasi
• SoftTalk_Messenger
• Judith_Balcazar
• Kabiru Rabiu
  

I highly suspect there are many more accounts connected with them, and many more spam articles which they have approved because they have both AfC and Autopatrolled rights, so I request a checkuser on them. Sorry for bad formatting. Regards, 86.98.200.220 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Celestina007 in case they're interested. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping Novem Linguae, I wrote this essay for this very purpose. I’m not sure I know what to do now, this is AN, following the evidence I think the editor should be indef blocked and all their articles put back in the new pages feed, Infact I’d unilaterally do that now. Celestina007 (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you point out a piece of evidence which could justify a block? I was looking at the situation yesterday, and I could not find any. As administrator, I may not block without evidence.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, there was this job post on upwork which has been suspiciously removed. Asides that, they clearly are creating promotional articles on non notable individuals which in the very least should see their sensitive perms removed. Celestina007 (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I looked at their deleted contribution, and I indeed see Parsiq which they created in August and which was speedy deleted under three criteria. I removed therefore an autopatrolled flag. Concerning an indef block, I would need more opinions of administrators. If artiicles are obviously non-notable, I do not understand why they are not deleted. (I actually believe that all of this is moot and that we are not going to hear from this user again, but moving the pages back to NPP queue is a good point).--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, Id be copy-pasting this to here. As it seems like all articles they created are not notable or WP:Bare at most, its a lot of articles so it seems like, Dan ardnt, DGG, Novem Linguae and all other reviewers proficient or interested in dealing with Nigeria related articles need to go to work as soon as possible in removing(AFD) this promotional articles out of mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter Is abuse of auto patrolled status sufficient for a preventative block, or is the removal of those privileges deemed sufficient? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I already removed the autopatrolled flag. For a block by itself, no, it is not sufficient (though if it is an UPE it automatically would mean a block). Again, for practical purposes, I do not think they will use this account again.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter, sorry, yes. I knew you had removed it. I've asked @Primefac to consider their behaviour for AfC reviewer status. I'm sad that it is not enough for a block. Thank you for the clarity. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

For future reference, we usually discuss this kind of thing at WP:COIN and if there is off-wiki evidence, it should be sent by email to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org – for obvious privacy reasons, but also to avoid things like the deleted Upwork profile above. And as Ymblanter said, we need to see evidence. We can't block or CheckUser someone just because you say they're an undisclosed paid editor or because they write about telecommunications executives (I don't get why somebody would write about them for free either, but some people do). – Joe (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Joe Roe, I believe you should mention the IP address or leave this message at the TP of the IP address who i believe you are addressing and who initiated this as I doubt they’d be coming back to check to see this message you just left. The IP address does indeed have a point, all the articles are promotional and non notable so in the absence of a concrete evidence on the part of the IP address, they do make a valid point rising to the point where the editor being reported can not be trusted with any sensitive perm, another thought crossed my mind, which is the IP made their first edit yesterday being this one, they seem to be familiar with our markup and whatnot so if this is reporting competition I don’t know. Celestina007 (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't ping unregistered users, so I fell back on the old fashioned method of assuming that people check back on discussions they started. – Joe (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe, I know this Joe, I said so in order for passerby editors to easily identify who specifically it is you are replying to. Celestina007 (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ping Go Phightins! who granted autopatrol to Luciapop. Articles by Luciapop. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not like all their contribution is creation of non-notable articles; Maria do Carmo Medina, for example, is clearly notable, and when Wendy Jaco was created another article of this person already existed, and later it was redirected.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ymblanter, is apt here, whilst a supermajority of their articles are non notable promotional articles, not all are, in fact I think I mention somewhere in WP:TRIO, that it is common practice for bad faith editors to create articles which indeed are notable and mix it with possible paid promotional non notable articles. Celestina007 (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked Kpunttay blocked for spamming. Additional spam found:

• Ronald Hsu (deleted G5)
• Mikkel Svane (confirmed COI)

MER-C 17:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Repeated insertion of mostly spam articles is reason enough for a block. We don't usually have to prove they're UPE. Celestina007 , perhaps you could tell us which of their articles you think might indeed be notable. Whether to remove these also is a much more difficult issue. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@MER-C, good job on the blocks, @DGG, thanks for the response, to be honest I literally do not know where to begin from, although Timtrent already has a head start on that as they may have sieved notable from non notable promotional possible undisclosed paid, see this important edit Timtrent made. Right now, I’m trying to focus on the articles reported here. I have already mass nominated some of the more obvious promotional articles. Furthermore, Timtrent has sent me on an assignment to uncover possible Socking, which I’m about commencing, Honestly this are reasons why we need more functionaries like you that scrutinize articles created by editors with the Autopatrol perm and why I appreciate sysops like Rosguill who do a beyond thorough job before giving out sensitive perms. Celestina007 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not really done very much. I need goggles above my grade to see more, though I've already sent two or three more to AfD today, and sent some pictures on Commons for likely nuking. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I've thought for some time that autopatrolled is something that can be gamed, much like 30/500. Really, the best way to cut down on some of this would be to find a way to set a certain percentage of autopatrolled articles through the new pages feed to catch some problem ones. Would also catch some poor-quality stubs that go through autopatrolled, such as Divo Zadi, which was created by an autopatrolled editor earlier this year but would almost certainly not go through AFC - three sentences sourced only to a single website red-flagged by Headbomb's script. Hog Farm _Talk 21:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm, yes, it is quite easy to game. Generally speaking, Autopatrol is the most sought after perm by editors who mean our reputation harm, I’m skeptical about editors who hurriedly request the perm, I do note that the word hurriedly is relative, I previously reached out to Barkeep49 on their thoughts on a hypothetical ideology where the perm is giving to editors who have been here for a minimum of 1 year and make it a prerequisite for requesting the perm and their response was basically insinuating the idea was quixotic, and yes, in retrospect I do agree that indeed it was a bit of a stretch, but again here we are, trying to remove the promotional articles this editor created from mainspace, in my opinion if some sysops are (flippantly) giving out this perm, then the onus is on them to every now and again check up on the list of editors they have given this perm to and scrutinize their articles for promotional articles on non notable individuals and remove the perm instantaneously. Celestina007 (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I also like the idea I've seen thrown around before that the autopatrolled perm should generally only be given out after third-party nominations. Hog Farm _Talk 22:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not much to add here, but as the admin who granted autopatrolled here in the first instance, I don’t remember much specific about their self nomination, but I can say that my process is always to spot check about 10-15 of their most recent 50 articles (which, per the diff above, leads more often than not to saying no). On reflection, that process doesn’t probably do much to see their creation patterns in a context that would make paid editing obvious. I’ll have to think about that some more. Apologies to all on this one and thanks to those doing cleanup. Go Phightins! 03:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

What about a bot to un-patrol some fraction (say 1%-5%) of new articles at random? If you want to get fancy, the fraction could even be based on the size of the current backlog. Pinging DannyS712 who has bots which do similar tasks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a really good idea. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Please run this by WT:NPPR before actioning. This is the third proposal this month I've seen that would increase the NPP backlog, and keep in mind that we are already at a very high backlog (9,000). I really think we should be more hesitant in general to take actions that permanently increase the rate of articles flowing into the NPP queue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's an issue, but I'd say letting spam slip through is a much greater one than the backlog. Hog Farm _Talk 00:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not very active at the moment, but if there is consensus to do something like this, please let me know on my talk page and I'll take a crack DannyS712 (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps autoconfirmed and extendedconfirmed should require 10/500 substantial edits, rather than 10/500 edits? Would make them a little more difficult to game, if nothing else - though it won't help as much with autopatrolled. BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(Not the same IP as OP) In my opinion autoconfirmed should only be handed out if the editor can demonstrate that they have an actual need for it (i.e. they're about to go on an article creation spree which would overload the review queue), we shouldn't be handing it out to users that make an average of one article a week as a show of trust. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Coming back to User:Luciapop, they are now sock blocked. The question is now what is to be done with the articles they have created and the articles they have approved from Draft? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 12:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I deleted a few, the rest should be nuked. The AFC accepts should be reverted as illegitimate. MER-C 17:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

    @MER-C Thank you for your diligent work. I hope other admins will have a crack at the remainder. What is the key block date for the sock master, please? Was Luciapop created after the sock master was first blocked? If so the rules suggest that all can go without further discussion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

User:AmirahBreen

Banned user block evades to say they didn't have a ban notice. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. AmirahBreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) WP:3X states 'If the user made substantial good faith contributions before being banned, a notice should be placed on the administrators' noticeboard alerting the community to the ban.' This has not been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.235.199 (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Well, thanks for doing so, then. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC) You are welcome! I would also like to point out that there is significant NPOV editing on Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed since User:AmirahBreen has been banned, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed&diff=1062242598&oldid=1061950902 which removes the entire sections on 'Attempted Term Extension' and 'Demonstrations and clashes over election delays' and introduces an NPOV sub-heading 'Disputes with Prime Minister Mohamed Hussein Roble' for a section which is not entirely about disputes, but also about his appointment and expression of sorrow over election violence. I would like to ask any editor who is genuinely neutral in the matter to rectify this as there are clearly attempts to whitewash the article since AmirahBreen was banned.85.255.235.199 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Is there something you'd like to disclose to us? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Not on this article other than my concern for a country in which 'Roughly 7.7 million people in Somalia will need assistance and protection in 2022' according to the UN, and the issues which are being whitewashed on that page have a direct impact on. Nobody here appears to care. 85.255.235.199 (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Hmm I'm not quite sure how a possible missing notice equates to whitewashing. You could try emailing ArbCom--good luck. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry

Misuse of spare account. Creating custom pages in all Wikipedia languages. User accounts:

• Special:Contributions/Soldierirani
• Special:Contributions/SarbazeMahdi
• Special:Contributions/Miladtayan
• Special:Contributions/AriaTess
• Special:Contributions/MMA Kid
• Special:Contributions/JRM2018
• Special:Contributions/Huyancho
• Special:Contributions/27.55.70.194
• Special:Contributions/49.237.14.170
• Special:Contributions/223.204.249.134
• Special:Contributions/27.55.83.223
• Special:Contributions/223.204.222.25
• Special:Contributions/27.55.93.143
• Special:Contributions/27.55.79.31
• Special:Contributions/27.55.77.130
• Special:Contributions/27.55.81.161

--Persia ☘ 13:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Three of these accounts have been blocked for over a month as socks of JRM2018. The others should be reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JRM2018, with whatever evidence you may have that they are all the same user. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Persia: As you were asked above, could you please report these at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JRM2018? I also note Huyancho's account is not attached here, so there's little we can do. Please stop reporting them here -- TNT (talk • she/her) 07:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• @TheresNoTime and Beeblebrox: I do not know how to report for inspection. I report in meta. You can report here for review if you can. All accounts in different wikis are editing this page.Also in wikidata,wikiquote and commons. Thankful--Persia ☘ 08:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

In dire need of help

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

---

I attempted to perform a page swap at WP:RM/TR and something went terribly wrong. Please help.--John Cline (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you could say that... I'll see about getting things moved to where they should be. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

🤣 -- TNT (talk • she/her) 23:47, 26 December 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.

db-move and drafts

In the last week I have seen two admins decline {{db-move}} requests of redirects in the article space where there was an AFC draft pending. The reasons given for the CSD decline were varying shades of the draft proposed to be moved here has not been reviewed and accepted - well duh! There is a redirect in the way.

This issue pops up every once in a while at AFC, and we recently discussed the issue and I am a firm advocate of having admins just delete the redirects because that's all wee need? I think the issue is that (for one reason or another) we are not getting through to the admins in general, even though requests like these are about as clear as they can get (examples 1 and 2).

In other words, my point in posting here is to ask if there is anything AFC can or should do to "spread the news" about this issue. Should it be a blurb in the admin newsletter? Should I just keep playing whack-a-mole with admins who decline these db-move requests and leave them all personal notes about the matter? Should we just accept that admins, much like new editors, don't actually look at the db- templates they're acting on and will never see the notes?

In fairness to those with mops, this is only two declined deletions out of an unknown number of successful ones, but it is two deletions within a week of me asking for AFC reviewers to ping me directly if their CSD requests get declined, and two-per-week is a large enough number to indicate a systemic issue. Sorry for the rant, thanks for the time and input. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds like not a big deal yet, but we can add this to the admin newsletter.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Primefac, Thanks for your note at my talk page, and for following up with the G6 deletion that I declined. I declined because I could find no evidence to support it; presumably that was the case with the other admin who declined. When I looked at the draft page, it still had the notice saying that review is pending, could take months, etc.; there was and is nothing at the draft to indicate that it has reviewed or by whom, in fact no mention of the reviewer anywhere. And the request for speedy deletion did not make it clear (at least to me) that the requester was an actual, neutral reviewer entitled to make such a call. I would suggest to that reviewer, who apparently uses the same wording every time, that they make it a little clearer, since I am not the only admin who didn’t get the message. Maybe something like “I am an AfC reviewer and have approved a draft article on this subject; please delete this page but do not implement the move; it is better for me to do it using the AfC script.”

To the deeper problem: I was also of the opinion cited at that other discussion - I tried this and got told that redirects are not preemptively deleted before an article is accepted. That's what I thought: To just go ahead and delete a page, because somebody requested it and on no other evidence, does not strike me as noncontroversial. If redirects ARE now supposed to be deleted without any evidence that a replacement draft has been accepted, that needs to be made clear to the community, as Ymblanter suggested. And to eliminate the ambiguity, could we set up something where the reviewer could replace the “review pending” comment at the draft with something like “draft accepted, move to article space pending”? That would a) clarify the situation at the draft itself and b) add the name of the approver to the draft’s history. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have pinged the reviewer in question but I will also leave a note at WT:AFC, in that I do agree that if a review is "ready to accept" but there is a redirect in the way, the reviewer should mark it as /reviewing to display the appropriate notification that it is actively being reviewed. The more this gets discussed the more I'm seeing that it's obviously not a single-group issue (i.e. "the admins") but that there are steps both groups can take to make it a bit more obvious/clear when a redirect should just be deleted with no additional followup from the patrolling admin. Primefac (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

AFC is optional (community has rejected making it mandatory even for paid articles), so you do not in fact need to make sure the person who wants to delete the redirect to make way for the draft is a qualified neutral reviewer and has decided to accept the draft. An independent editor passing through could also decide to move it to mainspace, as could the draft creator who has decided to not wait for a review. There are some cases where draft moves could pre-emptively be considered controversial (AFD draftifications, topic-ban from article creation except through AFC, redirect protected due to repeated expansions, etc.) but I don't see why one should default to assuming controversy. Just putting it out for consideration; I don't have experience with WP:PAGEMOVER stuff to suggest an optimal course of action. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting a clearer wording, I was pretty sure I was failing at communication somehow but not sure how to improve it. I'll try to use that and mark the draft as under review. Rusalkii (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Redirects are not deleted pre-emptively, so whoever is requesting the deletion needs to make it clear that either (a) they have reviewed and accepted the draft, or (b) they want to publish the draft without review; and also make it clear that they will carry out the move themselves after the redirect is deleted. I wonder whether a specific csd template for this special case would be useful? Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

They're not being deleted pre-emptively, they're being deleted via {{db-move}} so that a draft can be accepted and moved into its place. That being said, I debated after the WT:AFC thread was started that we probably should have some sort of {{db-draftaccept}} template that will indicate that it's a db-move specifically for AFC reviewers. Primefac (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

If we don't want to restrict it to AFC reviewers, per others' comments, then maybe {{db-movedraft}} would be a better title (or we could have two templates for the different scenarios of accepted draft and unreviewed draft). Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This is not a new problem. To use an example from 2014, I submitted the first article I ever created through AfC because I wanted independent approval that it was notable. Due to an existing redirect, the page was in mainspace for a full 24 hours as Bilorv/sandbox before the redirect was CSD'd and the draft could be moved. So there, the reviewer thought they needed to accept the draft before an admin would delete the redirect, but we really can't have mistitled submissions in mainspace for any amount of time.

I have been G6 tagging and waiting for deletion so drafts can be accepted for at least a few years now—I can't see the full record as I only turned on Twinkle's CSD log feature a year ago. My reason was generally a version of About to accept through the AFC process and I don't remember a complaint, even when I didn't touch the draft page (though you should leave a comment to stop another reviewer doing their own review—it'd be good if you could actually remove it from the queue without declining). Perhaps I should have added please do not move the draft here yourself so I could do it with AFCH, but I think in cases where the admin did move the page, they tidied it up enough themselves. It's worth saying that comments appear below decline reasons, so the admin has to understand AFC at a very basic level to follow what is happening (and if they can't then they shouldn't be trying to process a CSD with a custom reason mentioning AFC).

Now I have the page mover right I've switched to a more convenient workflow of moving the redirect into draftspace, accepting the draft as normal, and G6 tagging the now-draftified redirect, so I don't need to technically accept days after my decision to, and the admin doesn't have to worry about the draft needing to be moved/accepted.

None of this applies when the redirect has non-trivial history, and admins patrolling G6s need to be aware of the proper workflows for these cases. — Bilorv (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm an AFC reviewer, and my impression is that this situation sometimes doesn't go smoothly and could use some refinement. One time I tried to use G6, it was deleted without incident, but took several days. Another time, an admin chatted with me about it before executing the move. Page movers usually just round robin it, which is one solution. I'm not a page mover though. If I need to do this in the future, I am planning to try out WP:RM/TR, which will hopefully get everything moved and cleaned up at one time, without me having to remember to follow up on it days later. I agree with what others have said above that anybody may move a draft to mainspace, so that should not be a blocker, and I believe this is supported by WP:DRAFTOBJECT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias Present in Articles Regarding Renamed Places in South Africa

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

---

After finding List of renamed places in South Africa I thought it was strange that so many articles had not been updated to match current names. After doing research and looking for the proper sources, the name changes checked out. All major English-language news organizations use the new names and they are the names used by the government. But after making these changes on Wikipedia there was major backlash. More than usual Wikipedia pedantry. After looking into the edit history of these articles as well as the current events of South Africa, it became clear that some people are opposed to these name changes no matter what.

I understand that accusing people or articles of bias is a big deal so I am not doing this lightly. I want to outline every single aspect of this problem and why the evidence overwhelmingly suggests bias and bad faith are present in many articles pertaining to South Africa. Certain users have made this battle a near-impossibility by slowing the process down to a grinding halt for over a decade.

The guidelines for WP:COMMONNAME state “it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). Given that every major English publication in South Africa uses these new names, that criteria appears to be met. However, a common objection is that Wikipedia does not consider South African sources reliable. I do not know why that would be and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

Almost every single article about South African renaming explains that these are intended to be a form of decolonization and Africanization. That in and of itself does not have anything to do with Wikipedia’s renaming policies, but the response to it does. These city names have become a flashpoint for many Afrikaners who feel that the government is trying to erase white history in South Africa. Many are determined to never use the new names on principle alone. To believe that this battle could not extend to Wikipedia is short-sighted.

I have also had months of edits erased in the span of a day or two when User:Park3r decided to reverse every good faith edit I had made relating to South African cities. I would like a rollback if possible. User:Park3r also believes “South Africa is increasingly anarchic and few people subscribe to government directions”. Which is just not true.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/28/southafrica.rorycarroll

“White South Africans marched in protest yesterday against an attempt to rename their town to make it sound more black and African, part of a controversial nation-wide campaign to change placenames. Dozens of white residents in Lydenburg - and one black person - rallied to keep the name given to the town by Dutch settlers in the 19th century. The black mayor, Clara Ndlovu, recently announced that it would change to Mashishing, the name of a nearby black township which means "wind blowing through the grass".”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/name-change-for-pretoria-causes-heated-debate-1.453244

“When the government of South Africa's capital decided to change its name from Pretoria to the "authentic African name" of Tshwane, white Afrikaners were angry and frustrated that the name of one of their heroes was being expunged, while many blacks were proud and happy, even if they weren't quite sure what the name actually means.”

Local and international media report that those opposing these name changes are a tiny segment of the population. So my questions are:

1. What constitutes a WP:COMMONNAME? What needs to happen for a city to be renamed on Wikipedia? Is widespread use of the new names in English language media enough?

2. Should members of the Democratic Alliance be able to edit pages related to renamed South African cities?

3. Can I please have a rollback to my edits on South African cities?

I want to stress that many of these new names have been in use for years and some of the old names were never largely used by the indigenous population.

There is much more evidence in support of these name changes and my edit history is full of citations in addition to what is linked here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Too long, and not a matter for an administrator's noticeboard. The user has already filed walls of text at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa/Politics task force, and that is not going anywhere; the questions they ask at the bottom of this post are not questions for administrators to answer--except the last one, which is for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Where should I go then? This issue remains unresolved and the application of rules is inconsistent with the rest of wikipedia. I'm also alleging bias. How is this not appropriate for here? Desertambition (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

    Make a list of articles you think need to be moved, open a requested move and the talk page of one of them, and present the best arguments you have in a concise form, explaining how these arguments relate to our policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

    • I have done that, and it has gone nowhere. English language sources aren't accepted and my edits were all reversed. This goes against tons of Wikipedia guidelines. Sometimes, just presenting the argument doesn't work when you're engaging people who argue in bad faith. I just want to know what I'm doing wrong and how we are supposed to accept English language sources. Desertambition (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I object to the accusation that has been made against me here. User:Desertambition says "It seems inappropriate that users like User:Htonl have edited city names when they openly work for the minority party that largely opposes name changes across South Africa." As far as I can tell, the only edits I have made that even touch on city naming are the following (though I only looked back at the last two years):

• reverting a vandal who had swapped around the old and new names on the article Mafikeng.
• restoring the new name Gqeberha which had been removed from the infobox on the article Port Elizabeth.
• restoring a series of edits (not related to the naming controversy) on the article Port Elizabeth, which had been reverted as part of the edit-war over naming.
• removing an invalid and mis-spelled infobox parameter on the article Mbombela.

Other than these cleanup edits, I have studiously stayed entirely out of the debate that has been raging around this topic, precisely because I know that I would be accused of COI because of my employment. For the same reason, I won't comment on anything else in Desertambition's post. But I would like him to either show evidence of his accusation or withdraw it. - htonl (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• You moved Mashishing to Lydenburg six years after the name was officially changed. Seems like a conflict of interest when the DA opposes the name changes. Desertambition (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• • @Desertambition: No, I did not. I redirected a newly created WP:stub article under the title Mashishing to the article which already existed under the title Lydenburg. Also, that was in March 2012 — since you have been digging into my ten-year-old edits, you could have dug a little further and found that I only started working for the DA in October 2014. When I made that edit I was still a grad student at UCT and had no connection whatsoever with the DA. Please withdraw your accusations. I deliberately stayed out of this whole naming debate and I do not appreciate being dragged into it to be used as your political football. - htonl (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Htonl: Thank you for clarifying. I apologize for making that assumption and I have withdrew the accusation. That was my fault. Desertambition (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. - htonl (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Procedural close because there is no sign of any attempt by the OP to start even one RM on any of the relevant articles. Further the OP makes numerous accusations of bad faith without presenting any evidence. Long screeds of fillibustering posts here and elsewhere are not productive. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I have made multiple move requests so that is not even accurate. You're just dismissing what I'm saying out of hand. I have been arguing this for months. The evidence is overwhelming. Since when do English language sources not apply to renamed cities? I believe Roger (Dodger67) is unlikely to be a neutral voice on the matter as well. Desertambition (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

    Well it seems you did start

    • Talk:Port Elizabeth#Requested move 9 September 2021 (speedily closed for not having an actual rationale)
    • Talk:Port Elizabeth#Requested move 20 September 2021 (SNOW closed with the comment "A new RM paying regard to policy, particularly WP:NAMECHANGES, would be welcome.")
    • Talk:Port Elizabeth#Requested move 30 September 2021 (closed as TOOSOON with the comment "New and stronger arguments are required if editors really want this article renamed, and the wait should be at least a year before trying to rename this article again."), and
    • Talk:King William's Town#Requested move 27 November 2021 (closed as "No consensus that the new name has become the majority usage in English-language sources.").

    Which is really just two requested moves (even if the Port Elizabeth one took you three attempts to come up with a rationale the survived even basic scrutiny) so hardly "lots". From skim reading this discussion, the linked discussions and the RMs it seems there is an awful lot of WP:IDHT going on. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

    I understand where you're coming from, but if you look into those move requests you can see what I'm complaining about. Both move requests ignored overwhelming evidence that the name is in use by English language media and the general population. The arguments completely fall apart when you look at the evidence being presented. Especially for Qonce/King William's Town I provided tons of English language sources but they were dismissed without discussion and the move request was closed. I am following WP:COMMONNAME correctly. The sources are high quality and reputable. What is wrong with my sources and reasoning? I really disagree that WP:IDHT is going on given the fact that actual reasoning still has not been provided. No one has been able to articulate why these name changes should be ignored when the vast majority of English language sources, as well as the population, use these names. Desertambition (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Desertambition, your declaring that 'the evidence is overwhelming' is not likely to be a successful argument at WP:AN. The fact that you 'have been arguing this for months' is also not decisive here. Three recently closed move discussions on these articles have kept the old names. The fact that these discussions did not go in your favor is not a proof of biased decision making. But in a specific case, if you believe the move closure was flawed, you could open a WP:Move review. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I was unaware of the WP: Move review. I brought up the prior arguments to show that I have discussed this before and there is still no satisfactory answer. I thought of posting here because the problem is with every renamed South African city rather than just one article. Should I talk about that in a WP:Move review? Desertambition (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I went back to your contributions log, yes you had initiated a few RMs, but they are buried so deep under a huge pile of ranty posts about this topic that they are easy to miss. Your single-minded pursuit of this topic is a concern - also your failure to adhere to AGF. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not see why pursuit of this topic is a concern when no one can seem to give a clear answer as to what exactly constitutes a reliable source or WP:COMMONNAME. Of course we should AGF but sometimes people are not acting in good faith. I had all of my edits reversed and yet AGF did not apply there. Nor did WP:BOLD. I do not understand why that is. This whole situation seems to have inconsistent applications of rules and guidelines. Desertambition (talk) 21:30, 29 December 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/E

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

---

Can someone explain why this page exists, when edit requests can be posted directly on talk pages?

Also, has this page ever been useful? A quick glance at 500 of the 1500+ revisions shows abnormally high amounts of undos, blank/malformed requests, requests that don't belong in RFPP/E, etc. "‎Name of page you are requesting an edit to" requests go all the way back to when the page was created. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see the RFPP talk page for information about problems stemming from the recent restructuring of the page, which basically invites frivolous requests (a bit by design). I believe the work is not yet completed. Other recent discussions: EFN and AN. In answer to your question, this page has been useful; one of its main uses is times when the talk page is also protected. This section has existed at RFPP for many many years, with the WP:RFED shortcut created in 2009.[98] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@AssumeGoodWraith: it is for the rare situations where a talk page is also protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:01, 31 December 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.

Global ban proposal for Musée Annam

There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Musée Annam be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Musée Annam on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for articles to be deleted via CSD G5 while undergoing an AfD?

There's a section up above going over the articles created by User:Luciapop. Many of their articles were taken to AfD under the argument of WP:UPE. Some of those articles are trending toward Keeping, because notability of the subjects were shown, others are trending for deletion. But one of the AfDs is a multi-AfD of a bunch of articles that Luciapop made. And, during that AfD, admin User:MER-C has gone and deleted most of the articles under the use of CSD G5 (sockpuppet of a blocked user) and them and the AfD nominator seem to be using that as an argument for Delete in the AfD. I don't think this action was appropriate, or is an argument that's worth anything, or is properly following the CSD rules themselves. As WP:CSD states:

"Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Alternatives to deletion)."

And it is AfD that is one of those alternative actions listed. And AfD was what it was taken to. This discussion would be different if the CSD criteria being used was something that was actively a problem, such as a copyvio, but it's not. It's actually using the one criteria that merely requires someone else to assert that the article is okay to keep. Such as something that would be done in an AfD discussion. So, these deletions not only fly in the face of what CSD says to do, but they also actively inhibit proper discussion of the article subjects in the AfD itself. If only because now when looking up notability, one has to assume which person under that name it is rather than having what is stated in the article to know you're looking at the right person. It makes everything more complicated and also is certainly not an argument for deletion in an AfD. Silverseren^C 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

(1) I wasn't notified of this post. (2) You only gave me half an hour to reply before posting here.

> This discussion would be different if the CSD criteria being used was something that was actively a problem, such as a copyvio.

Abusive UPE is one such problem. The sockpuppetry was not known at the time of the nomination. Articles can be speedy deleted at AFD if new information comes to light. MER-C 19:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Except that the articles aren't actively promotional, which is one example of why UPE isn't the greatest argument to be making. This is an example of an article that is being actively promotional. The articles discussed up above were mostly just a single paragraph and had references. Now whether that meets notability is up for discussion, hence the AfD. But you deleting articles in the middle of an AfD isn't conducive to any form of discussion. Silverseren^C 19:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And the nominator is continuing to use these deletions as an argument for deletion in a notability discussion. Silverseren^C 20:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This should go to WP:XRV.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is ok to delete them under g5 if it applies. The afds should be closed and you are welcome to recreate them from scratch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

G5 isn't an actionable CSD criteria when a deletion discussion is going on. Literally anyone can take claim to a G5 article and say it's fine to keep. And, if the AfDs close as Keep, that would be an argument from multiple users in that regard. Silverseren^C 19:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Citation me. I've done it plenty of times, including making a significant edit to a G5 tagged article, resulting in the G5 being denied. Because it's not a deletion based on anything involving the article, it's dumb on-wiki politics revenge posturing. Silverseren^C 20:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

If I read the policy correctly, it says that the G5 deletion is possible anytime (even after the AfD if the participants were not aware of the fact that the article was created by a sock); however it is probably a better practice to inform the AfD participants that the article qualifies for G5 and let the discussion proceed. In this case, I would expect an extra relist and possibly pings to all discussion participants.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

G5 is actionable at any time (subject to the caveat that the articles haven't been substantially edited by others apart from the banned editor). I suspect there wouldn't even have been an AfD if the sockpuppetry had been discovered beforehand, as all of the articles would have been speedied. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And I would have done my best to make a significant edit to all of them to undermine the speedy, because G5 is a worthless CSD category. It has nothing to do with notability or even quality of the article. Silverseren^C 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

sounds like your argument should be at WT:CSD and good luck establishing a consensus to change the policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

G5 doesn't necessarily need to be applied all of the time. However, in the case of serial spammers creating articles similar to the ones that the master account was blocked for creating, yep, absolutely it should be used. And making a WP:POINTY edit to each one to "undermine the speedy" would not have been a particularly great idea, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

G5 certainly is necessary if we don't want blocking and banning to accomplish no more than merely inconveniencing chronic miscreants with having to keep creating new IDs while they carry on with business as usual and thumb their noses at everyone else. Largoplazo (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• G5 is fine in these circumstances; we've deleted articles undergoing AfD via G5 for years. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

And what happens if the AfD closes as keep? Deleting articles undergoing AfD is merely making the discussion more difficult and not actually helping anything. Silverseren^C 20:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What typically happens is you close the AfD procedurally per G5 since there is no need for an AfD if a CSD applies. I did this after seeing your reply, before having the realization that the AfD still needed to be open because the main title hadn't been deleted yet.

So, what happens now is that the AfD is moot for all of the ones that have been deleted, and is only discussing the article(s) that are still articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

So now I'll just need to waste my time getting the actually notable one undeleted as a draft and just reposting it with no changes whatsoever because there wasn't anything wrong with the article. Okay, I guess I'll do that. Annoying, a waste of time in regards to encyclopedia editing, but I suppose that's true for all G5 actions, just damage to the encyclopedia for revenge against banned users. Silverseren^C 21:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Same here about deleting via G5 while an AfD is open. In general, the G5 speedy deletion targets that are at AfD are already heading for a delete decision. Although I get it may hamper discussion, the block evading sock is likely to be continuing the same behavior that got them blocked (which, if the sock is creating articles, is often to do with their previous creations) and these articles are likely to either be not notable or needing a bit of WP:TNT.

I also disagree that G5 is politics revenge posturing. It has it's useful place to remove creations by sockpuppets that often should just be deleted instead of sending them to AfD. Furthermore, as edits made by blocked or banned users evading a block/ban respectively per policy can be reverted, this means that if the only edits to a page are made by the evading user then this would leave an empty page (and as such deletion is preferable).

If the deletion is controversial (such as a leaning to keep), then G5 isn't the way to go.

Although you likely disagree with me, I think this action is supported by policy. If you think that should change, then WT:CSD is the place to continue this using a formal RfC. The question could be to fully remove G5, or to prevent it's use when an article is at AfD. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• And now Timtrent is trying to influence the closing admin for the AfD by claiming that the G5 deletion should override any AfD decision. This is exactly the sort of nonsense I was talking about. Silverseren^C 21:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• G5 actually can override an AfD decision, that's specifically mentioned at the policy page. Having said that, at the moment it is looking unlikely that it will have to. Black Kite (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• The policy only says if the people involved in the discussion were unaware of the G5 status. They have been informed, so that doesn't apply. Silverseren^C 21:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, technically, all of those !votes were cast before the identity of the creator was known, so they may well be unaware unless someone has notified them. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

The delete votes aren't going to change to super extra delete. And feel free to notify the Keep voters. I doubt any of them will change their mind on the inappropriateness of both the multi-AfD being used to obscure actual individual notability of the subjects and the lack of actual discussion on notability going on. Silverseren^C 21:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I have not been notified (nor have I been pinged) that I am referred to in this discussion. I object to the overt hostility you are showing. Whether we agree or disagree we may do so cordially. Indeed, we must. You have used the term Bullshit in an edit summary directed at me, now "nonsense" is used here in what I as the person it is directed at perceive as a hostile manner, and I ask you politely to cease from using intemperate language, Silver seren. I do not ask for retraction, nor apology. I just ask for cessation.

Others will decide the matter at hand. I accept that you feel passionately about it. As ever the community will act on consensus, either to reinforce an existing one or to reach a new one. We are bound by consensus. Thank you for raising the topic. I am steadfastly neutral in this discussion. I am not now and choose never to be an admin. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 01:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, articles at AfD can be eligible for G5. Reyk _YO! 21:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• It is good to know that damaging the encyclopedia can be done even during an actual discussion on notability. I'm not entirely surprised that that's the case though. Gotta make sure we stick it to those banned users, after all. That's the purpose of Wikipedia, after all. Silverseren^C 21:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please point to the policy that says this, because it certainly isn't at WP:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Please point to the policy that says G5 cannot apply to a page at XfD under any circumstances. There is no such policy. Suppose a page gets nominated, one or two people vote delete for various reasons, the third person to show up recognizes the creator as a sock of a banned user and slaps a G5 on it. The G5 in such a scenario would apply. Reyk _YO! 00:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll also link to this AfD where a G5 tag was (wrongly) removed and consensus among the AfD participants afterwards was that it shouldn't have been. Reyk _YO! 00:39, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That AfD is irrelevant as all the !votes were for delete and therefore deletion was uncontroversial. Your hypothetical is missing key information, specifically whether there were substantial edits by non-banned users, if yes the page is not eligible for G5 regardless of the comments at AfD, if no then it can be speedily deleted if there are no !votes for something other than deletion. As for policy, WP:CSD requires that all such deletions must be uncontroversial, if there are good faith recommendations for actions other than delete then that cannot be true. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy, and I think consensus and practice are on my side. Reyk _YO! 01:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing "idiosyncratic" about following the clear letter and spirit of the policy, consensus that is repeatedly endorsed every time a new CSD criterion is proposed at CSD. If you think it should be different, then please feel free to try and get consensus to change it but I wouldn't hold your breath. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By both the letter and spirit of the speedy deletion policy, it is very obviously inappropriate to speedy delete any page under criterion G5 if any of the following apply:

• There have been significant edits by other editors
• The page has survived a deletion discussion after the creator's banned status was discovered
• The page is currently being discussed at XfD and one or more editors has expressed a good faith recommendation to do something other than delete (indeed this invalidates pretty much every speedy deletion criterion except copyvios and office actions).

In the last case, if that recommendation was made before the creator's status was known then those editor(s) should be informed, if all of them change their recommendation to delete (or withdraw their !vote) then it can be (but not must be) speedily deleted. If the recommendations are not changed and/or one or more of the non-delete recommendations were made after the creator's status was known then G5 does not apply.
I'm frankly astonished that we have administrators who don't understand this: Speedy deletion is only ever permissible for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion and If an editor other than the creator [objects to a speedy deletion] in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used.. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• A significant amount of the admins involved in G5 are like this. They seem to really, really care about dealing with banned user contributions in any way possible, no matter how much damage and harm to the encyclopedia is done in the process. I've seen very few that ever even follow the "significant edits by other editors" rule and actually decline a G5 nomination. They seem to either ignore the rule entirely and don't bother checking the article history or just don't do anything to the G5 nom and leave it to someone else, as if the idea of taking action themselves to keep something made by a banned user is offensive in some manner. The only admin I've personally seen (so there may be others) who regularly declines G5 noms and is exemplary in actually considering deletion nominations properly is Liz. Silverseren^C 21:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

• In general, speedies during an AfD are inappropriate. G5 is one of those where it's fine and reasonable. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedies during AfD's can be appropriate for various reasons—notably G3 (hoax), G12 (copyvio), and A10 (duplicate article)—if the speediable aspects of the articles were not spotted by the AFD nominators. I've seen a number of AfD's closed after the articles had been speedied. Deor (talk) 22:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

G4, recreation of an article is another one. Suppose an article is deleted at AfD with clear consensus to delete aside, unanimous aside from User:ArticleCreator and User:CreatorsBestBud. AC then mre-makes the article with no changes except possibly for cosmetic ones, someone G4s it, and the tag is removed by CBB. The article is then taken to AfD where everyone opines that G4 should really still apply, except for AC and CBB who both vote keep. What do? Simple. G4 applies. Reyk _YO! 01:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

AC's !vote does not count as they are the article creator. If CBB is acting in good faith (and absent any evidence to the contrary we must assume they are doing so) then G4 is not valid. An early deletion per WP:SNOW may be appropriate but speedy deletion is not. Remember that any good-faith objection to a CSD explicitly invalidates it (this is written in black and white at WP:CSD). Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Nah. I disagree with that obstructionist interpretation of policy. G4 applies. Reyk _YO! 01:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You can call it obstructionist if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it is explicit in the policy: If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. The creator of a page may remove a speedy deletion tag only if the criterion in question is G6, G7, G8, G13, G14 or U1.. This wording dates from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_77#Contesting_deletion:_proposed_changes_to_the_text April 2020. Thryduulf (talk) 01:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

G3 (hoax) is not a legitimate reason for deleting an article with "keep" !votes at an AfD. Presumably, several people have reviewed the sources and found them to be legitimate and in support of the content of the article, so any claim that the article's content is false is inherently controversial. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedies during an XfD are inappropriate (other than copyvios and office actions) if there are good faith votes to do something other than delete. If something like a hoax or duplicate article is discovered during the XfD then that information should be presented in the XfD (relisting it if necessary, which will largely depend on how soon the information is discovered) and prior commenters notified. Anything else is against speedy deletion policy as deletion is not uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, did you really just say this; “Speedies during an XfD are inappropriate (other than copyvios and office actions” ?? now it is not only incorrect but a factual inaccuracy, as G5's & G3's equally apply. Heck! Even G4’s are applicable. What policy backs your claim that only G9's and G12's are permissible? or what specific policy invalidates a G5? from being used???? Celestina007 (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A interpretation of CSD so restrictive that it defeats the purpose of CSD is no interpretation at all. Reyk _YO! 02:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The specific policy is WP:CSD, which as I have quoted repeatedly, requires deletions to be uncontroversial. Any good faith objection by someone other than the article creator means the deletion is controversial and therefore CSD does not apply. The purpose of WO:CSD is, from the top of that page, The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion [...] Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion.. Pages that have received good faith objections to speedy deletion have a practical chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I’m not sure why other relevant parties weren’t notified, but I guess as this isn’t an ANI you probably aren’t required to, okay so to your question, Yes, certain Speedy deletions like G5, G12's G9's G3's are perfectly fine even if an AFD is ongoing. Celestina007 (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

G5 seems quite clear. An article created by a sock, must be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 04:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not even what G5 says? Like, literally the opposite of what it says. If there are significant edits to the article by others, then G5 is completely inapplicable. Silverseren^C 04:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren, wrong, don’t cherry pick, @GoodDay is quite apt, the articles deleted by MER-C had a supermajority of all edits by the article creator, so what are you talking about? Please can you cease from this sort of editing? It is disruptive, I think I’m starting to believe Reyk was correct when they said here that you are deliberately misconstruing their words, how many sysops have told you thus far that MER-C's G5 was apt yet it is as though you intentionally aren’t hearing (IDHT) what is being told to you thus far, and this is becoming tendentious editing bothering on very disruptive editing. When you come to this notice board to learn, you do so from an unbiased objective mind free from pre-conceived notions, if you have all the “answers” then why bother to ask here for clarification? It is counter productive and very much disruptive, please stop already. Celestina007 (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No, what is disruptive are aggressive, belligerent, and unfounded comments like the one directly above. GoodDay made the sweeping (and possibly sarcastic) statement that an article created by a sock must be deleted. Silver seren responded by correctly citing policy. And then you chimed in with a whirlwind of uncharitable personal commentary. I am utterly aghast at how badly you managed to misinterpret that exchange. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: et al. G5 says This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and that have no substantial edits by others. (Emphasis mine). No CSD criterion, not even G12 requires deletion, they merely permit it under a very limited set of circumstances, one of which is that the deletion is uncontroversial. Read what WP:CSD actually says if you don't like what I'm saying, but Reyk is wrong and Silver Seren is correct according to policy, despite what some admins wind apparently like policy to be. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 06:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, over-literal and idiosyncratic though it may be, but you appear to be in a distinct minority and WP:CONSENSUS is policy. If you think these G5 deletions were in error you can appeal them at DRV. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Applying a policy as clearly and explicitly written in multiple places on the policy page is neither "over-literal" nor "idiosyncratic", it's just applying the policy. WP:CONSENSUS is extremely clear that the only times an admin may speedy delete a page is when it meets the WP:CSD policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy Speedy deletion should not be used except in the most obvious cases., If it is doubtful whether a page is or is not speedily deletable, a deletion discussion takes precedence. In practice, this means that a page that had a deletion discussion resulting in 'keep' or 'no consensus' should not be speedily deleted.. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus here and at the AfD strongly supports that these were correct G5 deletions. If you think the participants or the deleting admin got it wrong then that's an argument you should be making at DRV. Reyk _YO! 20:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• S Marshall's view: speedy deletion during an ongoing AfD isn't against a specific rule, but it's rude. It says: I know you guys are talking about this over there, but it doesn't matter what you think, here's a fait accompli. The fact that something's rude doesn't make it necessarily wrong, and some speedy deletions are urgent, but when it comes to CSD I agree with UninvitedCompany when he said this. Generally I'd prefer if people didn't speedily delete something that's at AfD except in cases of harm to a living person, contributor copyright investigation, or socking cleanup.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I sympathise with this position a bit. But cutting an AfD discussion short because it's found that a CSD criterion applies, I think most participants would understand even if they were initially a bit put out. More annoying are the ones that reach the end of the process and only then is a consensus-overruling fait accompli presented. I know you know what that's like; I don't like it very much either when it happens to me. Reyk _YO! 20:30, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's an interesting question. If all articles-in-question end up deleted per G5. Can those articles be re-created by a non-sock? GoodDay (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure. There is nothing in our policies which prohibits this.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay, of course, the problem is even if they aren’t nuked, the consensus at the AFD was to delete all. Celestina007 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking in general terms that doesn't necessarily prevent a new article being written. If, for example, the delete !votes are almost all due to the author being a sock then the notability or otherwise of the subjects has not been ascertained. Even if the rationales for deletion were on the merits of the article in question, then a more developed article with new sources would at the very least merit a new AfD and if those new sources clearly do demonstrate notability then there is no reason why it shouldn't be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• Speaking generally, it would seem to me that it is acceptable to apply G5 during an AfD to any article that was created by a sock and has not had substantial contributions from other editors. However, if there are editors at the AfD who believe that the article should be kept because the subject is notable, then it is probably wise to let the discussion play out. I think the notability of the topic should be given higher consideration than the fact that the article was created by a sock. To be clear, I am speaking generally without stating an opinion about the particular situation that led to this thread, mostly because it is not at all clear to me what exactly happened. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It's technically acceptable to use any applicable CSD criteria during an AFD discussion. However, except in very-clear cut cases (e.g. SNOW consensus in favour of speedy deletion, unanimous delete !votes plus newly applicable CSD criteria), there isn't any harm in allowing a discussion to play out. In the case of deletion discussions where there are good faith keep !votes, the only acceptable CSD criteria are G12 copyright deletions, G9 Office actions, and G10 attack pages where there are serious and clear BLP issues. Anyone except the article creator is allowed to remove a CSD tag, and a keep !vote at an AFD should be seen as equivalent for the purposes of speedy deletion. Not doing so would perversely make it easier to achieve speedy deletion in AFDs than CSDs in respect to the outcome. In the case of G5 deletions, this is slightly more complicated, but per WP:PROXYING, keep !voters should at the very least be explicitly asked to take over responsibility for the content. Forcing good faith users who want to improve acceptable content from banned users to go through the undeletion process is needless bureaucracy. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

• I did this a few days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Ninte - Record Producer. In fact, one of the core benefits of G5 is that it allows us to cut short the AfD process—it saves the community time it could be spent doing something else. The key thing to understand about WP:G5 is that its spirit descends from policies like WP:BE and WP:BANREVERT and should be interpreted in the light of those policies. For example, WP:BE states:

  Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. However, this does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

  If a banned or blocked editor creates a well-written article about a topic that is truly notable, then we do not necessarily have to speedily delete the article, and if the article is speedily deleted under G5, then I believe that many deleting administrators would look favorably upon a request to their talk page to restore the page into your userspace or draftspace for further development (essentially taking responsibility over the article in the place of the blocked/banned user). However, from a procedural standpoint, it is not improper to carry out a G5 speedy deletion even if an AfD is in progress, as long as all of the conditions are satisfied (created by a blocked/banned user in violation of the block/ban, and no substantial edits by others). Mz7 (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with using G5 in your linked AFD, since there was unanimous consent for deletion, some !voters explicitly calling for speedy deletion, and copyvio issues. By contrast, this case had keep !votes at the AFD, which provided possible reliable sources. Having substantive, good-faith keep !votes means that a summary deletion would likely be controversial and not-allowed under CSD. As for interpreting G5 in the spirit of the banning policy, WP:PROXYING explicitly allows good-faith editor to assume responsibility for the contributions of banned users. In such cases, at the very least asking the keep !voters to assume such responsibility should be done before a G5 deletion. Doing so here might have avoided all this drama. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Patar knight: I don't think the comparison is as simple as you suggest. While it's true that anyone besides the article creator can remove the template, AFAIK there's zero requirement for the tag to be added in the first place. Any admin who thinks an article meets one of the speedy deletion criteria is free to just speedy delete the article. The don't need to tag it and wait for some other admin to delete unless they've involved or not confident of their judgment.

  Further unlike for a WP:PROD, there's no minimum period between tagging and deletion. Person A can tag an article, admin B can see it in 10 minutes, spend the next 5-10 minutes doing any necessary checks and delete it and it's gone in 20 minutes. During this time, anyone who might object could be sleeping or otherwise have no realistic chance of seeing the tag. And again, unlike with a PROD, once the article has been deleted, undeletion/reversal generally only happens after discussion. And while the no consensus is less clear, I'm fairly sure I've seen some cases where no consensus meant the speedied article stayed deleted. By comparison, except in cases of WP:SNOW, most AFDs are open for at least 7 days and no consensus means the article stays.

  Looking at AFD which started this thread, the first keep seems to have come here [99] for one specific article, and this was a bit over 24 hours since the AFD was started [100]. And any other articles are longer than 24 hours. I don't know what CSD is like, but I would guess 24 hours even during this holiday season would often be enough to result in action in a clear cut case especially from an editor who deals with a lot of this sort of stuff.

  So you could alternatively say that perversely instead of opening the AFD, Celestina007 should have looked into the sockpuppetry then waited for their SPI [101] to be resolved so they can simply speedy tag them straight away rather than having opened that the AFD since once they opened the AFD they gave more time for objections to kill the CSD then may occur with CSD.

  I'd argue that the best way to view this is that either way, things are going to be different. And especially given our WP:NOBURO and general lack of firm rules, people are going to be able to come with different scenarios where things would have played out different, which may make how things played out in one specific case may seem unfair. IMO it's probably better to focus on what manner of dealing with somewhat unusual situations produces the fairest outcome for that specific situation in line with the goals and sprit of our policies and guidelines.

  Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, admins can quickly and summarily delete articles under applicable CSD without tagging, but that's because CSD are limited to clear-cut, uncontroversial deletions that shouldn't require community discussion because the outcome is obvious. If someone in good faith !votes keep on an AFD that's otherwise applicable under a CSD criteria, as was the case here, that instantly muddies the waters. Letting the AFD run or at least having some sort of discussion about assuming responsibility, per WP:PROXYING, over the articles that the keep !voters wanted to keep instead of ignoring their objections and speedily deleting would probably have averted much of this drama.

Regardless, to start an AFD, the article must be tagged. Except for the creator, any editor can remove a CSD tag, including G5 tags, to object, which then bars most CSD criteria from being used on that page. Editors can't remove AFD tags, but they can object by !voting keep at the AFD. If admins can still speedy delete in the latter scenario, but not the former, then in the context of an editor's (or in this case, 3 editors') procedural ability to object to speedy deletion, then it is easier to get potentially controversial speedy deletion candidates deleted at AFD than CSD, which is not ideal.

I don't see how your example is perverse. Of course different processes will have varying amounts of time for people to object, but once there is a good faith objection, most CSD criteria do not apply. In any case, the problem with blocked/banned users are ultimately their contributions, which in this case were sub-par articles. If improving the encyclopedia means deleting the articles, then it makes sense to AFD them immediately to get the ball rolling, since SPI can take a few days or a week to get an answer, which might be inconclusive and require an AFD anyway. If it is socking and there's no objections, then G5 could apply. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

>[I]t saves the community time it could be spent doing something else.

That is exactly why I deleted the articles. I have no objections to the articles being recreated by volunteers - but the sock articles should remain deleted. Keeping them rewards the bad behavior, literally, because they get paid. MER-C 13:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

It's a complicated matter with no perfect answer. Socking should not be rewarded, spam is unwelcome, but being too zelous can be hurting the community too. If a topic is notable and sock's article is salvagable, deleting it while denying some satisfaction (paycheck?) to the sock also means another regular volunteer one day may need to waste their time recreating non-offending content. While I am more of a deletionist these days, I'd say that unless there are additional aggreviating circumstances aside of just PAID COI (such as some harassment, etc.), AfD can be left to resolve without CSD jumping in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, using G5 to "save time" has led to this AN thread, an ANI thread, and likely some future DRVs, AFCs and/or AFDs. On the balance, probably more time wasted then letting the AFD run, and leaving it to the closer's judgement for the articles that some thought should be kept. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not appopriate use of speedy, IMHO. Nothing majorly wrong, no warning or sanciton needed anywhere, just a general note that speedy was used in good faith but not correcty, and let's move on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Making a "significant edit" to undermine G5

So what is our policy/guidance/opinion on this practice? In November I was trying to delete some Sander.v.Ginkel creations under G5, while at the about same time the OP was going though them making fairly trivial edits with a summary along the lines of "here's me making a significant contribution to the article" (example here). I restored those pages because that's the letter of the law, but was uncomfortable about doing so. I wrote at the time " ... your edits were not really substantial in relation to the size of the article/amount of sockpuppet content. I don't know, but your actions here don't seem to be exactly in the spirit of collaborative editing – from where I sit it looks as if you are gaming the system to preserve content created by a sockpuppet. We have rather good reasons for deleting sockpuppet creations, and I'm not at all sure that you are helping the project by trying to circumvent them". I haven't changed my mind. Am I alone in that opinion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Very well expressed, JL&N; in my personal opinion, perhaps we should try and establish some ballpark figure (percentage?) to define "substantial". ——Serial 15:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

My take under current policies is that, when someone takes an action with the stated purpose of undermining G5 on any article, they take full responsibility for the whole content per WP:PROXYING. If the editor is not familiar with the particular sock and the article enough to be able to take full responsibility, they should not actively undermine G5. Full responsibility means if the content contains BLP violations, they should be sanctioned for violating BLP. Same with copyvio, notability, verifiability, original research, neutrality, etc. To be clear, I would not recommend anyone do it, unless it's a big number of decent+ articles, enough to outweigh the "banned means banned", "we don't trust you, we don't want your contributions" elements. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. MER-C 16:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

My thinking is that "substantial edit" does not necessarily include the edit summary and that asserting "I am making a substantial edit" does not make it so. That said, on Special:Diff/1054407536 I think one could disagree on whether it counts as a substantial edit so I would probably not press the delete button myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the edit summary asserting that an edit is substantial does not necessarily make it so, but while rather pointy it is an explicit assertion that they know the page was created in violation of a block/ban and that they are taking responsibility for it. If a user in good standing has explicitly taken responsibility for a page then it should not be speedily deleted under G5 (treat it like it had been deleted and then restored on their request). Independently of that specific edit, I would argue that in general all of the following are examples of significant edits (this is not intended as an exhaustive list):

• Adding references to existing content
• Adding at least 1-2 sentences of new, referenced content
• Adding at least 4-5 sentences of new, unreferenced but plausible content
• Adding a claim of significance (referenced or otherwise), that wasn't previously in the article, which would make the page ineligible for A7 speedy deletion (ignore G5 when assessing this).
• Adding conversion or similar templates to a large table or to a large number of entries in a list
• Adding a lead section to an article (of at least 5-6 paragraphs) that didn't have one

In contrast only the following are likely not significant edits when done alone, especially if marked as minor (again, this not intended as an exhaustive list)

• Adding maintenance tags, COI tags, etc.
• Small copy-edits, typo fixes, syntax fixes and similar
• Adding links, categorising
• Adding a small number of conversion or similar templates to prose or to a short list or table
• Bot edits

As always with speedy deletion, if it is unclear whether a page meets a criterion then it does not. Unless you are absolutely sure that there is no question it meets the criterion then it is best that you tag it for someone else to delete rather than deleting it yourself. If one editor has made small edits on multiple clearly separate occasions, and that editor is still active, consider letting them know it was created by a blocked/banned editor and asking whether they want to take on responsibility for it - if they say yes make a prominent note (possibly with a null edit in the article's edit history) somewhere so that others know this. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I would also include any edit that clearly changes the meaning of existing content (e.g. "The army attacked A, then B, then C" => "The army attacked C, then A, then B"). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who does a lot of G5s, Thryduulf's criteria for "significant edits" seem generally similar to the ones I use. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. G5 doesn't imply that the banned or blocked user has to have created the article in a single edit for that criterion to be applicable. If a user subject to G5 makes 100 edits after creating the article, while nobody else has, the entirety is still that user's creation. Alternatively, since all edits by said user can be summarily rolled back, one could roll back all the past-creation edits and then have the original G5able article. Why would anyone imagine that G5 is meant to be interpreted to so readily undermine its own purpose? Largoplazo (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is implying that. Primefac (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, maybe. I interpreted "OP" to mean the person who'd created the article. Now it hits me that it refers to the OP of this thread. Largoplazo (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• I actually only started putting that in the edit summary because when I had made significant contributions to G5 tagged articles before, the CSD admin would ignore that in the history and delete them anyways. So I thought I would have to be more apparent and point it out in my edit summary as well. Which, in itself, might also be useless if the problem is the CSD admin not even checking the history of the article or following the G5 rules in the first place. And all of my contributions were always at least a sentence + a reference of content, which is significant in every scenario. As for other CSD criteria, if there is another reason for deletion that is an actual reason related to content of the article, that CSD tag should be used over G5 anyways. Silverseren^C 19:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

• I suspect that, if people started making cynical edits to dodge the policy, the community would respond by interpreting G5 more broadly. A similar thing has happened with G4. People were making cosmetic changes to articles and then claiming that it's not substantially identical because the infobox is now purple when it was previously green. That sort of thing does not fly around here. Reyk _YO! 20:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
• It is frustrating that we are going off topic, or, this is morphing into a different discussion, in my unbiased view, MER-C was accurate, we aren’t in the business of encouraging banned or blocked editors to continue to re-incarnate, this very discussion is in itself very disturbing as it empowers blocked editors to continue to evade their block, although I have noted some rather idiosyncratic interpretation of policy, MER-C made a move that was apt & in accordance with policy, if an RFC to the effect of changing the interpretation of what constitutes a G5, then that is a discussion for a site wide RFC and not here, I don’t think there is a pertinent reason this discussion hasn’t been closed yet. Ironically, even if MER-C didn’t nuke the article’s he nuked, the consensus of the AFD was that the articles be deleted and it was deleted today. It does us a disservice that we not only debate what was a correct move but that we even prolong it. Celestina007 (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's very clear from both your comments and your tone that you are not unbiased here, and it is also clear that your interpretation of the policy is not universally agreed upon. The other day you apologised on my talk page for your inappropriate comments in the ANI thread this discussion spurred and not even a week later you are again dismissing the views of those who disagree with you as "disturbing", "idiosyncratic" and implying that editors holding those views are "encouraging banned or blocked editors to continue to re-incarnate". This is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The comments I made were insinuating you probably didn’t understand how CSD's work, which I apologized for because It was sheer sarcasm, when you say “inappropriate comments” it evokes a feeling as though I said something egregiously spiteful which clearly I didn’t. I’m not sure why you felt the comment was targeted at you, I mean, I never even mentioned you, so I’m not sure I understand this hostile comment aimed at me. furthermore you said this; “dismissing the views of those who disagree with you as "disturbing", "idiosyncratic" and implying that editors holding those views are "encouraging banned or blocked editors to continue to re-incarnate” I’m sorry, “This is you talking” as I never expressly said that neither did I imply them, my comments weren’t directed at any person or persons, but a general all encompassing one, You are putting words in my mouth and I certainly do not appreciate that. Furthermore you said “and it is also clear that your interpretation of the policy is not universally agreed upon.” this aren’t solely my “interpretation” as others in this thread also share similar interpretation of policy, Infact, to buttress my point, I wasn’t the “administrator” who interpreted the policy and nuked the articles, so I can’t possibky be the only one who interpreted G5 in the manner it is expressly explained in WP:CSD#G5. Celestina007 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I have never claimed your words were directed (solely) at me, they are inappropriate whether they are aimed at me, any other single editor or other editors more generally - although it is very clear that you did say the words I quoted you as saying. I also did not say that you were the only person to interpret policy the way you do, I said that your view was not "universally supported" because there are an approximately equal number of experienced editors who disagree with you as who share some or all of your opinions in this matter. Finally, G5 does not "expressly explain" the course of action taken - as has been repeatedly explained by myself and others, G5 permits (but does not require) the deletion of pages created in violation of a block or ban under certain conditions, all of which must be met. The two relevant conditions for this discussion are (a) that there be no significant edits by other editors, and (b) the deletion is uncontroversial. In at least some of the cases here neither of those conditions were met. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

G5 clarified

Why not begin a discussion over at the appropriate talkpage, to clarify its criteria, if editors are in disagreement about how to apply it. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

When emotions have calmed down a bit I intend to start that discussion, I don't have a proposed wording in mind yet though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFP

There's a backlog of 20 unanswered requests at WP:RFP. Clovermoss (talk) 06:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll have a look now. Daniel (talk) 06:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Did most of them, have left a few odd ones for others to have a look at. Daniel (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Arpowers revenant

After Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1087#Arpowers and gendered hostility, there is a user Arpowers2 who continues at the same place: Special:Contributions/Arpowers2. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Permission error for creating a new Wikipedia article

Resolved

 – Case of the hidden characters solved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am trying to create a new Wikipedia article called "Kuruk­kalmadam massacre". When I try to create the article, it says "Creation of this page (Kuruk­kalmadam massacre) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists". Any help will be highly appreciated. JohnWiki159 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Please create Draft:Kuruk­kalmadam massacre, and, when you are ready, submit the draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it still gives a permission error saying "Creation of this page (Draft:Kuruk­kalmadam massacre) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists". Any help will be highly appreciated. JohnWiki159 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The original title contains a soft hyphen. Try Draft:Kurukkalmadam massacre. DanCherek (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's due to the invisible character after "Kuruk"­ and before "kalmadam". I'm presuming you've copied and pasted the title from some source, which has inadvertently included the character. Try writing it out normally on your keyboard and it will let you create both the regular article, and the draftspace one. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. I typed it normally on my keyboard and it worked perfectly. I will continue working on the Draft:Kurukkalmadam massacre. Thank you very much. JohnWiki159 (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If you follow User:Ymblanter's link above, and examine the URL, you'll see it says "Kuruk%C2%ADkalmadam". The characters between the lowercase k's represent an invisible character which was the problem. 46.116.231.127 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Agnostic Atheism - Article

I have attempted with current cited sources to correct errors on this page.

Users have repeatedly reverted back to the original which is outdated and based on references as far back as 1894. I have used current references from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on a section written by Professor Paul Draper of Perdue University whose Curriculum Vitae is beyond reproach. https://cla.purdue.edu/directory/profiles/paul-draper.html

If you look back even further, I used other current cited source material to show that the term "Agnostic Atheism," is no where to be found in any current scholarly work, encyclopedia, used at the University level, and is a contradiction.

This is the type of thing that caused me to stop editing Wikipedia. Users can just change my work without notice, and without the research, knowledge and hard work I put in.

I am a published research professional. My work can be found at researchgate.net and at the Center For Pluralism in Washington, D.C. among other places.

So why should I waste my time here? Schools don't accept Wikipedia as a valid cited source, Wikipedia is not used in any scholarly circle, or for published research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madjess (talk • contribs) 16:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Madjess. I'm sorry you're frustrated. Many academics have a difficult time with Wikipedia writing. You've got multiple things to unpack above.

1. No school should accept Wikipedia as a valid cited source! Wikipedia doesn't accept Wikipedia as a valid cited source. Wikipedia articles are -- or aim to be -- basically a curated collection of reliable sources about a particular subject, with prose that explains what those sources say. Ideally our goal is to produce something akin to a research review written by a talented undergrad with access to every library in the world. What teachers should be telling their students is that Wikipedia is a great place to start your research.
2. That Agnostic Atheism section you were working on last year...there's too much for me to try to figure out what was going on, but it looks like you were having the same kinds of trouble many academics have. Academics are used to doing original research (which we don't do) and synthesis (which we don't do). The writing style is also very different; ours is, well, encyclopedic, not academic. We don't make persuasive arguments in our articles. We simply report neutrally what reliable sources say. Most academics think they'll have an easy time transitioning to Wikipedia, but I've found many struggle. Librarians, now. Librarians take to Wikipedia like a duck to water. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Journalists also have great difficulty editing here for similar reasons. The style of prose is simply too different from what they are used to. In both cases, the styles call for drawing conclusions, which is not something we do. The greatest contribution that Wikipedia makes to researching, is the list of references at the bottom. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that we are being trolled here. Surely no serious researcher into philosophy would make such an obviously dogmatic appeal to authority? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Given an acquaintance's stories about how often her work is mentioned but not cited (she's outside the Ivy/Oxbridge/etc constellation), I'm not sure we can rule out the likelihood of appeal to authority. :D —valereee (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia since 2006, and I've seen many academics bounce off Wikipedia hard because we wouldn't let them bypass WP:V and WP:OR. A few adjusted, but others left & a handful flamed out so bad they had to be indeffed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe this video can give you some inspiration: Using Wikipedia: Crash Course Navigating Digital Information #5 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm INVOLVED here but I think this is also related to the recent IP edits that I reverted. As an academic myself, I can confirm that Valereee is correct on the difficulties of learning a new style of writing and source usage. In my view, the problem here is that the IP editor and OP have a POV of the term based in their academic training that does not match the more common usage of the term (cf. "stomach flu" from an MD's standpoint). But moreover, I think the OP may be pushing a POV because the very source (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy )the IP editor cited contradicts their own edit. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says

Notice too that, even if agnosticism were defined as the rather extreme position that neither theistic belief nor atheistic belief ever has positive epistemic status of any sort, it wouldn’t follow by definition that no agnostic is either a theist or an atheist. ... Yet they have faith that God exists and such faith (at least in some cases) involves belief. ... More recently, some atheists proudly call themselves “agnostic atheists”, although with further reflection the symmetry between this position and fideism might give them pause. More likely, though, what is being claimed by these self-identified agnostic atheists is that, while their belief that God does not exist has positive epistemic status of some sort (minimally, it is not irrational), it does not have the sort of positive epistemic status that can turn true belief into knowledge.

No doubt both senses of “agnosticism”, the psychological and the epistemological, will continue to be used both inside and outside of philosophy. Hopefully, context will help to disambiguate. In the remainder of this entry, however, the term “agnosticism” will be used in its epistemological sense.

All that said, if I am to AGF I encourage Madjess to continue adapting to Wikipedia's style. We need more academically-minded editors with content expertise who can also do Wikipedia editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Cadiseni

I want to pull the article out of the draft but can't because I'm a new user. Please help to delete Drart in this articleBaskovski (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Amortias re-appointed as full clerk

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Amortias (talk · contribs) will be rejoining the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk. We express our thanks to the clerks for the work they do in ensuring that the arbitration process operates smoothly. If you are interested in joining the team as a trainee, please read through the information page and send an email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Amortias re-appointed as full clerk

Account blocked

Hi! Im trying to join in but I got a pop up message telling me my IP is blocked

Block ID #11821231

I have never ever used Wikipedia before and I would like to use it for my job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.107.158 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you would need to regietsr an account.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• They can't make an account. 120.22.0.0/16 (history) is blocked from several articles that are COVID related, with account creation blocked. In order to create an account, that restriction would need to be lifted. Since Scottywong made the range block, I will ping him and see what he wants to do. Let me also note that when someone say they want to use Wikipedia for their job, I have to wonder what their job is, and if we have a future COI issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  Pinging User:GeneralNotability who made the rangeblock on 28 October with account creation blocked; Scottywong just added the COVID articles to GN's block. DanCherek (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  As DanCherek pointed out, I only added some pages to the existing partial block on this IP range. In general, I'd be ok with allowing account creation from this range, if everyone else is ok with it too. It's easy to block registered accounts if they decide to cause trouble. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's a {{checkuserblock-wide}}, which basically means "this is a CU block that we expect to have some collateral damage" (the rule I was taught is if more than 80% of an IP/range's contribs are from the person we're blocking, normal CU block, otherwise wide CU block). What I'm not sure of is whether we send them to ACC or the CU email queue to request an account. And Scottywong...this is a checkuser block. Softening the block is not a question of whether "everyone else is okay with it," it's a question of whether a CU is okay with it, and this block was specifically intended to prevent account creation due to abuse. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• @120.22.107.158: Please give the names of a couple of articles you would like to edit, with an outline of the changes you had in mind. You appear to be blocked only from certain articles. Why is there a need to edit those articles when there are six million others? I don't see why a block should be relaxed without some information about the need. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

  Not sure that is kosher, being the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but it appears the problem he's reporting wasn't the ability to edit but the inability to create an account. ("join in"). Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

2021 review of RfA complete

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to facilitate this Barkeep49. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Bishopfinger vandalises my user page, refuses to talk, adds unsourced content, (meat)puppet master

User:Bishopfinger has vandalised my user page (in multiple edits) due to my disapproval of his addition of unsourced content and WP:FICTREF at Reformed Old Catholic Church.
I have tried to explain the user on his/her talk page the edition and vandalism issues, to which the user vandalised my user page a second time.
Furthermore, the user seems to also be the same person as User:149.86.88.78, as they both insist on adding the exact same unsourced content around the same period of time (Bishopfinger: [102], [103]; IP: [104], [105]); it is at least meatpuppetry. Veverve (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is clear-cut vandalism, and I have blocked for 31 hours. I've added an indef partial block on Reformed Old Catholic Church --though it seems that this removed the earlier block? Veverve, they're likely just editing while logged out--not OK, but not a big deal. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• @Drmies: Now there is this IP's edit summaries which are all personnal attacks. I think the page Reformed Old Catholic Church (and possibly its AfD) should be protected. Veverve (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry you had to endure more of that, Veverve. So it did turn into a real socking case--two accounts blocked, IP rangeblocked. Thanks, and all the best, Drmies (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    • No problem; thanks for your quick interventions. Was User:149.86.88.78 a sock of Bishopfinger in the end? You did not indicate anything on this IP's user page. Veverve (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, You did not add the Template:Sockpuppeteer to the user pages. I would add it myself, but from what I read in the documentation it is an admin's duty to add those. Veverve (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not necessary to tag every blocked user. Often there is no point and it looks like that applies here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

New admin tools

Hi all, for those who don't know me, I'm Ed6767 (talk · contribs). In 2020, I developed RedWarn, which is now one of the most used counter-vandalism tools on this Wiki. It's been continually praised by its users for its user friendliness and other quality of life features, however, it was optimised only for non-administrators. Myself and Chlod spoke at Wikimania this year, where I discussed my motives and the history of the project.

I moved on from RedWarn in November to begin development on a more advanced project called Teyora, which aims to fix everything I did wrong when making RedWarn, whilst also aiming to provide an actually viable, accessible and user friendly web based Huggle alternative (no, it's not a userscript, but a separate fully fledged web app) that still carries forward the good things about RedWarn, without the bad. It also will have both reporting features for non-admins, and blocking, protection and other features for admins, and have a basic operating capacity on every Wikimedia wiki (more advanced features are planned to be achieved through community sourced/first party extensions). At the moment, for the sake of creative freedom this is a personal project at the moment, of course with plans to expand into a team when I'm ready - but I need to do a bit of market research :p

As this is mainly a question for administrators, and the village pump is often ignored, I think this is the best venue for my question, which is this:

What do you dislike about current administration tools (blocking, reviewing reports from AIV, page protection, etc)? What would you like to see to make your life easier?

Which of these planned features, if any, would you benefit from? And what concerns do you have about them?

1. Quick revert and block - you can revert an edit and immediately/quickly apply a temporary block (with a 30 second grace period to allow you to cancel the action)
2. User info - User contributions, whether they have been warned in the past month and why, and ORES scores all quickly available on a diff/other pages to allow for more informed decisions
3. Moderating multiple Wikis at once - fancy moderating Simple English and English Wikipedia at the same time? (**different Wikis will be made clear, and if you have under 10 edits in a wiki you will be reminded to check local policies before you edit**)
4. Both a static and live feed - see live edits as soon as they're made and/or a "static" feed that is updated every few seconds that can contain your watchlist, edit filter hits, a page category (think copyvios, requests for admin help or pending edits) or other things
5. Workspaces - use different extensions, Wikis, configurations, filters and feeds for different workflows, like patrolling uploads vs monitoring recent changes, or patrolling Commons vs patrolling Wikipedia, etc. You can also share and use first party workspaces, or those made by the community, or just create your own from scratch!
6. User watchlist - watchlist users for a limited amount of time and get notified (time limitation is to mitigate hounding)
7. Alert on change - get a notification when a page is edited (this is present in RedWarn, but will be much more refined). This could be useful say for monitoring when new AIV or RFPP requests come in and you want a bit more of an alert.
8. Quick protect - one click to protect a page for whatever reason, again with a 30 second grace period before the action is made
9. Reading list - add articles you come across whilst patrolling to a reading list, separate to your watchlist, similar to the Wikipedia mobile app
10. Watchlist folders - divide your watchlist into folders and share watchlists with the community
11. Ask for help/flag an edit as "unsure" - you may have a time where you encounter an edit that may be disruptive, but you my be confused or stuck for any number of reasons. For example, you may not know a topic too well, or a figure may have been changed that you're unable to verify, so you can flag an edit that you're unsure about to get a second opinion.
12. Add citation needed in edits - add citation needed to any part of a change, a good faith alternative to reversion (no promises here, may be added on enwiki if technically possible with an extension)

These features are only planned, so there is no guarantee you will see any of them in the finished project. Please avoid checkuser/oversight etc comments as I can only test and develop for sysops as I only have sysop on Test Wiki - other than that any and all feedback, comments or questions is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your feedback in advance! ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 04:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• Caveat of I am not an admin, but watchlist folders would be extremely useful for me and I'd imagine for most users in general. Flagging edits is also an interesting idea. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  I should clarify, these aren't admin exclusive. All these features other than the ones that require admin rights will be available to all users :) ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 04:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way, but I'm frankly not understanding what point 3 does. Hog Farm _Talk 04:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Typically recent changes is fixed to one Wiki, i.e. English Wikipedia. However, the way Teyora's server is set up is that it listens to all changes made on every Wikimedia project, and the Teyora client can subscribe to whichever Wiki(s) you're using. This allows you to choose more than one project to be shown in your recent changes feed, and your configuration (warning templates, etc) will be changed seamlessly as you go between wikis, whilst still having a single unified recent changes feed. It's a new concept, so it's harder to explain, but I hope this clarifies. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 04:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• I would love an easy way to see how many times a user has been warned in the past X period of time. While I'd personally love a user watchlist, I worry about misuse. I would use alert on change; just because something is on my watchlist doesn't mean it's important enough that I need an alert, but there are a few pages I'd like to make sure I see. (And I'd like to be alerted when certain pages get a new section opened, ditto.) —valereee (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• User Info and User Watchlists would be really helpful for determining if someone is a vandal or just made a one-off bad edit. Watchlist Folders might be really useful for helping communities keep track of related topics, especially if changes to the original propagate to all followers. Flagging an edit as Unsure would be a very helpful tool, but it might get buried by subsequent edits, so I'm not sure how well it'd work out. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• A user watchlist would be a real concern. The WMF has recently done an accidental end-run around this, and a formal mechanism (temporary or otherwise) would be of concern even though it would be immensely useful. User info, especially showing warnings which might have been blanked, watchlist folders, and I take a static/live feed as "standard" since mediawiki itself offers it. The 2nd opinion proposal is interesting and I'd like to see more about it. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear: as edits are public, there are many ways you can build your own "user watchlist" - you can even use a wiki page, example: Special:PermaLink/1063005226. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  Of course, using a wikipage doesn't make it secret who you are watching - but there are numerous ways to build that client-side. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Nosebagbear, I'm aware of the concerns of user watchlists and have considered some mitigation protections, some I've considered are:

• You can only have a user on your watchlist for 3 hours at a time, as if you're watching a vandal that's typically the longest you'd need to, however, you can renew a watch manually up to 4 times for a total of 12 hours before having to wait 24 hours before you can start watching a user again (i.e. watching a user has to be deliberate)
• User watchlisting gives an intrusive notification whenever they make an edit, not just a log showing in your feed for example
• Only approved/trusted users can use the feature
• Use of the feature is logged and publicly visible

Whether or not these would work, we wouldn't know until a trial period is run, but I'd appreciate your opinion or any further situations. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 18:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this.

Account creation error Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. You can view the full block details at account contributions.

The block was made by ‪Johnuniq‬.

The reason given is:

Disruptive editing: per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request for extension of partial block

   Start of block: 01:51, 6 December 2021
   Expiration of block: 01:51, 6 June 2022
   Intended blockee: ‪2A02:587:0:0:0:0:0:0/32‬
   Block ID #12237660

If you believe you are seeing this message in error, you may submit an appeal on the administrators' noticeboard, on your talk page, or by UTRS.

Return to Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses.

As per the above notice, my IP address has been blocked. I don't remember having a Wikipedia account. Maybe I had created it a long time ago. Can you please explain to me why my IP address is blocked? Is it by mistake? Please remove the block so that I can use your services. Best Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1882:4800:905B:6BEE:26C2:582A (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to edit any page not listed in the block log. The block reason should now be using this link for an explanation: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#Request_for_extension_of_partial_block. @Johnuniq: Did we mean to also block account creation? This is a huge range with no obvious history of multiple accounts. The previous block allowed account creation. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@zzuuzz: Thanks for pointing that out. I took the defaults and failed to notice that "Block account creation" was applied. I have reblocked with it removed so IPs can now create accounts. Re the above IP's question, on 28 December 2021 I was pinged to User talk:2A02:587:180E:5CD2:EC21:B139:6F77:45FC with a similar question by another IP in the range. The first block I applied was on 6 December 2021. It's a big range of IPs but it is a little strange that two of them have tried to edit one of the articles (1, 2, 3) they are blocked from.

@ 2A02:587:1882:4800:905B:6BEE:26C2:582A: The IP you are currently using has no edits other than the above. What article would you like to edit but cannot? What changes were you thinking of making? Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a few more talk pages where you didn't get the ping.[106] At least one of those is probably collateral from a sub-range block. As I understand it, when a partially blocked IP says something vague like "remove the block so that I can use your services", or "Somebody blocked me", they are probably not attempting to edit the blocked pages (the IP user is welcome to correct me). It seems to me that IPs within this range are reassigned at least once per day, so I'd expect almost every IP to have no other edits. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, that's pretty weird. I've never been an IP editing from a range with a partial block on three articles so I have no clue what happens. I would have thought that the only way I would know I was blocked would be if I tried to edit one of the three articles? Or does MediaWiki show a banner with the block details when a partially blocked IP visits wikipedia.org at some other page? It's the wrong time of year to ponder that, maybe later. Re the IP who did ping me—they are obviously experienced so it is inconceivable to me that they wrote that ever-so-innocent question and failed to look for a response when they would have answered my gentle question. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Request lifting of editing restriction

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

---

It has been over six months since I volunteered an interaction ban with Fæ. I still have no intention or reason to interact with them but the iBan also prohibits other, unrelated behavior such as WP:CLEANSTART and WP:VALIDALT, and there may be more that I am not aware of. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support I firmly believe that we can take GM at his word here. Girth Summit _(blether) 02:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support as procedural move, trusted editor. Star Mississippi 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• I don't see how an iban makes it impossible to have a valid alt account. It does make a clean start impossible, but announcing you are doing a clean start also does that. Additionally, it is very easy to avoid interacting with a user who is blocked and has not made any edits in the time since the iban was agreed to. I'm not saying I oppose lifting it, I just think these factors should be pointed out in the conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how an iban makes it impossible to have a valid alt account. Apparently being under any kind of sanctions means you cannot use more than one account (c.f. the Encyclopædius mess). I don't know what policy that stems from but I assume it's accurate. Regarding the clean start comment, sure, but you'd still be in violation of policy, and so if you're checked for some reason you'd probably be blocked once the connection is discovered. As such, I don't personally think either of those factors are valid. Plus some people just don't want to be 'an editor under sanctions', which I personally think is fair enough. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  Re: "I don't see how an iban makes it impossible to have a valid alt account", That's not what I was told at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guy Macon/Archive:

  "Gonna jump in because I [Tamzin] was the one who, when asked, advised Vati that there was a policy violation here (although I was neutral on whether an SPI should be filed).

  The editing restriction was an unblock condition, and is logged at WP:Editing restrictions, so, while it may have been voluntarily entered into, it's not "voluntary" in the sense that Guy can walk away from it anytime he likes, and thus does prevent him from using an undisclosed alt. That said, given that he hasn't violated the IBAN under the DSX account, and given that blocks are not punitive, now that Guy acknowledges that he controls both accounts, I agree there's no harm being done, as long as he links the accounts on their userpages or commits to only using one of them going forward." -Tamzin (emphasis added)

  Re: "is very easy to avoid interacting with a user who is blocked and has not made any edits in the time since the iban was agreed to", No. It isn't. For example, I cannot in any way discuss the reasons why I stopped editing articles on Wikipedia, because that would involve mentioning Fæ. Beeblebrox, I said I have no intention of interacting with them. If you think I am in the habit of lying about that sort of thing, please provide diffs showing that sort of behavior.

  --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  So the question is one of disclosed versus undisclosed alts. WP:CLEANSTART says A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks, or sanctions (including but not limited to those listed here) in place against the old account. For undisclosed alts that aren't clean starts, I'm not sure there is any one place in WP:SOCK that says the same, but I've generally understood it as implicit in WP:SCRUTINY: Simply put, if one has active sanctions, but is editing under an undisclosed alt, how can anyone keep track of whether those sanctions are being followed? For a disclosed alt, there's obviously no issue, seeing as you're using one.

  All that said, it seems to me that if the community can rescind a sanction, it can also resolve that a sanction doesn't prevent creation of an undisclosed alt or clean start (perhaps with the undisclosed alt / clean start disclosed to ArbCom and still expected to quietly abide by the sanction). Just a thought. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin I think "something disclosed to ArbCom that the person is still expected to quietly abide by" is unworkable in practice. ArbCom is not equipped to monitor editors. Further, if it does become aware of a violation, enforcing it presents its own challenges. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• There are a growing number of areas where "good standing" (as defined by a lack of all restrictions) both on project and in movement. For example, the WMF has a habit starting back in 2020 of restricting all movement/committee positions to those in good standing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Interaction bans only serve a purpose when they are actively preventing conflict by preventing active users from interacting with each other. Voluntary or not. If the users are not interacting in any way, and one/both are not active, the ban serves little purpose. And since Fae is unlikely to be returning anytime soon (short of the community collectively deciding it wants to usher in 2022 by praising the drama gods) the potential for future interactions is minimal. The only real concern for me is "I cannot in any way discuss the reasons why I stopped editing articles on Wikipedia, because that would involve mentioning Fæ." - well you can - its not that difficult to say "I got into conflict with someone" without going into extended detail, but it would be disappointing to remove the restriction only to shortly have posted an extended rant about said conflict and the other person. While I do not expect that in the case of Guy, I trust my point is made? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

That is a good point. No, I am not goind to waste everyone's time by posting an extended rant.

I actually have nothing good or bad to say about Fæ themself regarding this issue because they did not complain about or comment about the actions that resulted in my 3.5-hour block, but I do have something to say about Floquenbeam (notified[107]) regarding calling me a liar ("I'm not going to participate further in the conversation on Guy's talk page if the entry fee is having to pretend he is being honest")[108] a troll, ("trolling by Guy Macon removed.")[109] a transphobe ("intentionally mocking someone's gender")[110], blocking me without giving me any warning or opportunity to keep my 16-year clean block record by stopping the behavior, and specifically threatening to indef me over this thread. I think Floquenbeam should agree to ask another admin to handle the incident if they think I am violating a policy.

I stand by my conclusion that I currently cannot say anything at all -- no matter how general -- about the reason I quit contributing to mainspace articles without violating the interaction ban.

To be clear, I have no intention of posting an extended rant about Floquenbeam either. That ship has sailed and he is well aware of my opinion on the subject. I expect to do exactly as I have been doing; quietly maintaining essays such as WP:YWAB and WP:1AM and avoiding any editing in mainspace. If this restriction is lifted, don't expect any change in my current behavior. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Oid. --JBL (talk) 13:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per other policy based supports and WP:AGF. I kinda trust him!!! -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Meh. It's difficult to reply without getting sucked into an argument about the incorrect statements Guy has made above; I've tried twice and keep getting sidetracked. Third draft: If lifting this iban makes it easier for him to be considered Officially in Good Standing^(TM), and as long as he doesn't use the opportunity to unilaterally dump on Fae, I don't object. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC) p.s. did anyone notify User:Ritchie333 of this thread? He's the one who accepted the iban as a condition for unblocking. Knowing Ritchie, I'm confident he wouldn't object, but he should still be aware of this, and I don't see a notification or discussion with him anywhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• If maintaining alternate accounts is important to Guy and having a logged edit restriction prevents him from doing that, then I don't have a problem with it being lifted if he continues to stay away from Fae's talk page. It is true that Fae is indefinitely blocked but that was also the case before the iban.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - For what it's worth, it's easy to reverse course on the IBAN if for some reason an issue occurs that necessitates it. With the likelihood of that being low, it doesn't seem that the IBAN serves a purpose anymore. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support The restriction was voluntarily requested and so should be lifted when requested, for the reasons put forward. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: I don't have a problem with lifting them either, but to be clear, the restriction was agreed to as a condition for an unblock. There's "voluntary", and then there's "voluntary". --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support. No convincing reason not to, and a net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support: it seems clear to me that Guy Macon always follows rules to the best of his understanding. Indeed, I came into minor conflict with the user last year over what I view as an overly rigid personal interpretation of rules that escalated a content dispute. However, he's not on trial here, and the only question is whether Guy Macon (the person, not the account) can be trusted not to engage in interactions with Fæ or involving mention of Fæ that will cause disruption. I believe the answer to this question is "yes".
  Let's say, completely hypothetically, that Guy Macon gets a clean start (not that he's said he wants to). I would be happy for him to do this, and would hope that de-escalating situations (such as by just walking away), being more open to other viewpoints and not bludgeoning would be areas for personal reflection that he could work on without high-pressure scrutiny. I have no doubt he would observe very carefully that the behavior of [a clean start] account determines whether it is a legitimate fresh start or a prohibited attempt to evade scrutiny. — Bilorv (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support Good editor. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support I can support this. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:53, 5 January 2022 (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.