Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive321

Indefinite block of Валко per NOTHERE

I indefinitely blocked Валко this morning per WP:NOTHERE. Whereas I think this is a good block, on a second thought, there are a couple of issues which I outlined below which could make it better if the community reviews it. The user essentially does not speak English, they have been indefblocked in the Russian Wikipedia and moved here. Their interest is mainly the Russian Volga autonomy republics such as Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. They have some unorthodox views on the history of these republics, not shared by other users and not particularly based on reliable sources - whereas they sometimes seem like an expert fighting against a bunch of profanes, a closer inspection shows that they reject mainstream academic sources and refer to interviews and this kind of less reliable sources. A good example of their modus operandi is here: Talk:Bashkortostan#Soviet Encyclopedia Now Russian Encyclopedia where they use a bunch of sources to combine the conclusions (original synthesis) to come to an opposite conclusion to what a reliable encyclopedia states. This was going on for years on the Russian Wikipedia before they were indefblocked, and it subsequently was continued here, against the same opponents. They also tried to edit the Russian Wikivoyage, where I blocked them, because their main idea was to introduce a bunch of detains which were possibly wrong but most certainly unnecessary for the project and out of scope, and after the block they continued to send me these details by wikimail, presumably trying to convince me that I am wrong. (We very rarely, I would even say exceptionally, block users there who are not spambots or vandals). This was my only intersection with them, I never interacted with them on the English Wikipedia. However, since I have not even given a warning to them and blocked straight indef, and since I might seem to be involved because of my Wikivoyage block, I think it would be better if uninvolved admin(s) would look at my block. If somebody needs Russian translations, I can assist with them. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As a starting note, INVOLVED specifically notes that if you've only had prior administrative interaction with them, then you wouldn't be involved, which would also seem to apply cross-project. @Ymblanter: - on Russian Wikipedia, did they edit any other areas than these ones? That is, the indef could be justified if they're only here to campaign for their points, or indeed if their English is so bad that CIR applies (though that wouldn't be a straight block to me). Were they not indeffed on Russian wiki, I might be more inclined to suggest a couple of TBANs (though that would require sufficient ability/willingness to engage here), but with it, it's probably a good call - I'll be certain when I can do a longer check. Yours, Nosebagbear (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I will answer all questions, show sources and documents. I'm not a vandal. Валко (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC) Duplicated from user's TP Nosebagbear (talk)

Thanks a lot. I think this is part of the problem. Did anybody say the user is a vandal? I am pretty sure they will be able to come up with a lot of links in Russian to read. --Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Ymblanter, next time you should use uw-indefblock — the once the block has expired bit in the standard time-limited block message could be confusing for new users. El_C 17:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's the one I was never able to find though I knew it exists--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• "@Nosebagbear, El C, and Ymblanter: Great Russian encyclopedia: created national-state. Education within the framework of the RSFSR: the Volga Germans Labor Commune (10.19.1918), the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic (03.20.1919), the Autonomous Tatar Socialist Soviet Republic (05.5.1920), the Karelian Labor Commune (8.6.1920), the Chuvash Autonomous Okrug (24.6. 1920) and others.

decision ru:Арбитраж:Игнорирование АИ Despite the absence of a detailed analysis of the authority of sources in the discussions, a wider recognition of 1919 as the year of foundation of the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (albeit under a different name and in a smaller territory) was shown in these discussions.

Under a different name and in a smaller territory. I suggest as in the article Turkestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (initially, the Turkestan Socialist Federative Republic

The Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (initially, the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic) [1] and [2] [3]

@Ymblanter: You said that I was not a vandal. Then why blocked? Валко (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)"

There were multiple edits by the user here, with the number of templates not making it smoothly drop into a quote template Nosebagbear (talk)

@Валко: - you weren't blocked for being a vandal (you weren't trying to damage the encyclopedia). You were blocked for being here more to advance a specific agenda/pov and convince others rather than enhancing the general encyclopedia. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear:, I’m not promoting anything, it’s well known, but for some reason they want to hide it. The Republic was formed under the name Bashkir Soviet Republic User talk:Ezhiki#User Валко and his original researches on the Bashkortostan topics Валко

@ Nosebagbear : On March 20, 1919, as a result of the signing of the “agreement of the Central Soviet Government with the Bashkir government on the Soviet Autonomous Bashkiria”, the autonomy of Bashkur-Distan was recognized by the central authorities and transformed into the Bashkir Soviet Republic (BSR), as well as the Autonomous Bashkir Soviet Republic (ADB ) [thirteen]. ru: Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic # Official names of the republic , So what's the problem? Valko ( talk ) 14:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)"

Closure needed at RfC at WT:NFC

Can an admin that hasn't participated yet please close Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Requiring_non-free_content_to_indicate_that_in_their_filenames? It has been open for two months, and while it was close to 50/50 in the beginning, there's now about twice as much opposition as there is support.

I intend to put a few proposals on that page (unrelated to the one above), and have been holding off until this one is closed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, I've closed it as unsuccessful and removed the do-not-archive template. ~ mazca ^talk 23:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Mobile Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd protests

I know that most admins here are aware of the George Floyd protests article but I think there is not enough attention. The article is flooded by many new and old accounts who are editing the article rapidly. It is hard to follow up, there are editwars and disruptive, POV edits in between these rapid edits that you can't notice. Many new editors are unaware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned on ANI, I have move protected the page, indefinitely. I have also just enacted a one month moratorium on any further move requests following a flood of these which was beginning to hinder the stability of the article. El_C 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that I have now also extended the moratorium to the subarticles. I'm not prepared to allow the same conversation to be conducted from one article to the next when it was already addressed in the parent article. El_C 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Support the moratorium; there've been many RMs in a short period of time, and enough is enough. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

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

Administrator changes

CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth

Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment asks whether the Unblock Ticket Request System (UTRS) should allowed any unblock request or just private appeals.
• The Wikimedia Foundation announced that they will develop a universal code of conduct for all WMF projects. There is an open local discussion regarding the same.

Arbitration

• A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is Michael Brown "recently deceased"?

Michael Brown died almost six years ago. Should Shooting of Michael Brown remain under DS-BLP? The article gets little attention these days, aside from a steady trickle of uninformed, quickly reverted edits by unregistered or low-time registered editors, which never warrant discretionary sanctions. If anything, the article would be better served by permanent semi or ECP than by DS. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

No longer recently deceased; no longer covered by BLP, DS or otherwise. In any case, agreed: Semi-protected indefinitely. El_C 23:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Brown may not be recently deceased but Darren Wilson, who killed Brown and who is discussed extensively in the article, is alive, as are other people mentioned in that article whose actions were controversial. That being said, I would not object to shifting to semi-protection if there is little disruption of this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

And I see that was done while I was researching and writing my comment. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The BLP DS is usual assigned to the article subject, which is not Darren Wilson (police officer). Anyway. I removed the BLP DS. I'm not sure it is of any use anymore, regardless of these policy hypotheticals. El_C 23:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Well that's not a biography so there was never any living nor recently deceased person as an article subject. In other words, as neither Michael Brown nor Darren Wilson were the articles subjects, by that token BLP DS was never justified. However I'd suggest that since the subject was the shooting of Michael Brown by Darren Wilson it was a fair call to apply BLP DS. After all to "any edit in any article with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people or any edit relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles on any page in any namespace." And in fact for all the nonsense going around at the time of the shooting, BLP concerns were always going to arise more for Darren Wilson than for Michael Brown. That said, many years after the investigations, I agree that there's no point keeping the DS. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Death of X means X is the subject, even if it isn't a purely a biographical article. But perhaps you're right... I'm really not sure. El_C 18:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions don't count matters of race, do they? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Depends on which race, and which AC/DS sanction one is looking to enforce. For example, WP:ARBANEG is specifically about race. Primefac (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions could also affect matter of race in BLPs as well. If someone keeps modifying claims of the race of living persons in contradiction of RS, it IMO (bearing in mind I'm not an admin so never have to make such judgments) may be reasonable to give them a topic ban or something under the DS process where the awareness etc criteria are met. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Review of the indefinite block of Cesdeva

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.

---

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

I have placed an indefinite block on the user Cesdeva. This user is not a new editor: they have edited Wikipedia since June 2013, have more than 2500 edits, and have access to the new page reviewer toolset. Despite their experience, they have deliberately defaced certain Wikipedia articles as a means of protesting the killing of George Floyd on three occasions: first on the Donald Trump article on May 28 [4], next on the United States article on May 28 [5][6][7], and again on the United States article today [8]. When doing this, they use misleading edit summaries, such as "typo", "minor reword", and "wikitext render fix". When asked about these edits, they have defended them: see [9][10][11][12].

On May 28, 2020, they were blocked indefinitely by admin Galobtter (talk · contribs) for this behavior. However, 16 hours later, they were unilaterally unblocked by admin Golbez (talk · contribs), who believed the indefinite block was "premature"—see unblock discussion. Because the user has now continued to vandalize Wikipedia after being unblocked, I have reinstated the block. Because this is a relatively experienced editor, and because a similar block of this user has been reversed by another administrator in the past, I would like to voluntarily list this block for community review here at AN. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I think perhaps the first indef was a bit much, perhaps a 48-72 hour block would have sufficed, but still warranted as they were clearly editing to "protest", and if nothing done after that, all well and good. Going right back to what got them blocked however warrants the indef for now. In say a month after emotions have cooled from recent events, I would welcome an unblock from the editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Original indef block was fine. AGF unblock was fine. Reblock is fine. Even Cesdeva's outrage is fine (though I question the benefit of his choice of protest). RiB's idea that an unblock in the future would be reasonable is fine. I don't mean "fine" as in that cartoon (that I can't find a link to right now) where everything is actually burning, but an actual non-ironic "fine". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Here you are, Floquenbeam. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 01:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Cesdeva: Oh come on. Many of us are outraged by the Killing of George Floyd. I see no benefit to defacing this encyclopedia as an act of protest. The perpetrators of that outrage are in no way bothered or inconvenienced by your "protests". Please conduct your activism off Wikipedia where it might do some good. When you are again ready to help build the world's largest free-content encyclopedia, please let us know. Feel free to use your time away from WIkipedia engaged in any lawful pursuit you please. In case anyone is wondering, I am fine with Floquenbeam's response above. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 21:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Salt their earth. I gave them a chance and they do this? No. Go away. --Golbez (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Cesdeva: Working on the articles that document the abuses is a more effective way to draw attention to the abuses. Your vandalism gets reverted in two seconds and nobody will ever remember it. But an article you help write will be here forever. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• What Floq said. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Immature, ineffective protest. Good block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Emotions are running high right now (see my interchange with another vandalizing editor at User talk:Darcklighting) but there's a limit to how far we should go to allow acting out. Good block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Per my comments there at the time, the original indef block was fine and the AGF unblock was unwarranted when nothing but bad faith had been expressed. Per today's comment, the user is still rationalizing even while under indef: Let's be honest here i could have done far worse like running AWB spam scripts or replacing templates that fall short of TE protection. Your honor, I could have done so much worse and didn't. Stellar block. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Unusual case of WP:CIR. Indef block was required. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• As much as I approve of vandalizing articles about Trump, it doesn't help. Here is a list of articles that can be brought up to GA and expanded in support of George Floyd and as a fuck you to America's woefully racist system. Praxidicae (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, New Study Says White Police Officers Are Not More Likely To Shoot Minority Suspects Sir Joseph ^(talk) 00:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I fear if I roll my eyes any harder at your absurdly irrelevant comment, they may actually get stuck. Praxidicae (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand the desire to prematurely bring these matters to AN. If these blocks and unblocks are so controversial, then they will naturally find their way here. Further, I do not find the block or reblock to to be out of line; however, I do find the unblock by Golbez to be questionable, as it shows a lack of familiarity with what "indef" means and how it is used, despite their comments saying otherwise. Their haughty comment about being here longer than Mandruss is quite unnecessary as well. Nihlus 23:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nihlus, I think it was brought to AN preemptively to avoid concerns of wheel-warring (which is an absolute no-no). creffett (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Per Praxidicae and Levivich. There are right ways and wrong ways to protest on Wikipedia. Defacing articles makes us look immature. Expanding articles and working to right our well-documented systemic bias helps everybody. Good block. creffett (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support re-indef. A long-established user who starts vandalising should quickly be indefinitely blocked: either the user's gone rogue and knows better (and won't stop voluntarily) or the account's been compromised. And if there's reason to believe that the account hasn't been compromised, the indef should stay unless there's a convincing argument that it isn't helpful. No complaints about the unblock — on principle it's fine to lift such a block if the user is convincing — but when you get blocked for cause, you say that you won't repeat it, and you go right back to what got you blocked, it's entirely appropriate to restore the block with at least as strong of settings as before. Maybe a 24-hour block could be reimposed as 48-hours, and while you can't get longer than indefinite, you can bring it here to ensure that it may not be lifted without a community discussion. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait; this is just a block review. I really, really disagree with the idea that if we support this block now, it somehow becomes a de facto community ban, and there has to be another discussion here with a consensus before they are unblocked even if there's a legit unblock request. Is this how others are reading this discussion too? This has been a constructive editor for seven years who is upset. In a month, I'm 100% confident they can be safely unblocked with a legit unblock request. If this is truly how we're handling this these days, then I'll switch to Oppose, not as a criticism of Mz7's block, but to prevent an unnecessary escalation on our part. The difference between a 24 hur block and an indef block suddenly becomes way more stark, and indef suddenly becomes unreasonable. I will certainly never bring one of my blocks here for review if it means turning them into de facto community bans. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

    Floquenbeam, this is my concern as well when it comes to prematurely bringing these blocks to AN. I don't think wheel-warring, as creffett mentions, is a valid reason for doing so either. Nihlus 02:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Nyttend: you say that you won't repeat it - He didn't say that. He said he was done for the night. Everything else he said was in defense of his righteous vandalism. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support block per Cullen--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse block, but would prefer change to duration to 1-3 months, as I see no point in bothering AN with the unblock request once everything's cooled down. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Obviously there is a consensus supporting the reblock. However, per Floquenbeam, this discussion does not convert the ordinary indefblock to a community ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Indef block until a convincing unblock request comes forward. Azuredivay (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• In case there was any doubt, from my prior comment, I endorse the indef block' This is not a CBAN and user can be unblocked if he can convince an admin it is not unwise to do so. I also endorse subsequent removal of TPA. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Mike Perjanik

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.

---

An admin has redacted all revisions of the Mike Perjanik article that existed between 2010 and 2018, therefore making the progresion of this article invisible. This is censorship and should be stopped. Southern Lights (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Southern Lights: No, it was deleted as a copyright violation. You might want to contact the admin in question, Moneytrees (talk · contribs), directly if you disagree. Regards SoWhy 07:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No, there was mass censorship of historical revisions by User:Moneytrees. The edits need to be reinstated rigth now. Southern Lights (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate DRV

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

---

• A DRV [[13] is open pertaining a redirect page named Derek Chauvin -- [14]. Yes, it's true, a redirect page.

• Contrary to the OP's opening statement which says they created the Derek Chauvin article [15] it was and is a redirect to the George Floyd article [16].
• The redirect is currently protected due to edit warring, [17] and the OP reverted a couple time themselves [18], [19], among a flurry of edits by three or four editors until it was protected.

• I posted a summation at the DRV which will save time and space if I don't repeat it here [20]. I think the essential point is': "The intended result [of the DRV] is to indirectly undo a decision by an admin to protect the [redirect]. Rather than go to the admin or an admin board the OP opens a DRV...I think this belongs at WP:ANI or WP:AN, and not DRV. It's just not making sense." I copy edited that post with three subsequent edits (I think).

So I am requesting independent Admin eyes to take a look at the situation. And I'm not pointing fingers. I am just hoping someone closes the DRV as inappropriate, and that is not for me to decide. I may not be seeing something correctly. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering that people are using the AfD result a justification to again turn it into a redirect and protect it in that state, a DRV seems a fair process to address this. And turning a redirect into a full article is basically the same as creating an article, so no idea why you bring up that issue as if that has any bearing on this. You state that the redirect is protected due to edit warring, which is true, but you leave out the remainder of the edit summary for the protection: "see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin (police officer)". At the moment, this belongs at DRV and can and should be handled there. Fram (talk) 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

• This was the action of an administrator using one of his admin-only powers, concerning the existence of a standalone page, who took the action in part based on an AFD discussion and explicitly cited it. Why on earth would it not be in scope for DRV? —Cryptic 10:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• In response to the above. I was thinking that creating an article from a redirect was not the same as starting from scratch. My mistake. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Fram: and @Cryptic: As you both said, the second part of the rationale for the hardened redirect pointed to the AfD. For some reason I hadn't noticed that when I posted here. After your feedback, I could also see there was some merit for leaving it at DRV. But, I decided to leave my AN report as it is to see how things would turn out. Anyway, this will be helpful to me going forward. So, your feedback is much appreciated. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Requests for closure

There is a dreadful backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Are there no admins regularly working that page? SpinningSpark 11:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As I point out every time this is raised, most people ignore it because it primarily consists of one user listing RfCs he’s uninvolved with that may or may not actually need to be closed. It overwhelms the board. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying there. Is someone mass-adding requests? If so, filtering out the ones that were requested by someone who did not take part in the discussion may be the solution. Or just forbid drive-by requests altogether. Whatever, something really has to be done about it; this is an important board. If we don't have effective dispute resolution processes it will lead to more behavioral problems and come back to bite us in the ass from a different direction. SpinningSpark 12:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Just did a quick headcount. By my count ~30 of the open requests at ANRFC are from Cunard. ~20 are from all others combined. I know Cunard says he has been trying to take on the concerns of the community about this, and I believe him, but from a numeric standpoint his requested account for the overwhelming majority of the backlogged discussions needing closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

So do you agree that they should be closed as "not done" if there is no evidence that the participants wanted an admin close? I'm willing to go through a bunch of them and take the flak for that, but I'd to feel there was consensus to do that first. A lot of them are completely stale anyway. SpinningSpark 14:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I’d support responding to stale requests at ANRFC with {{nd}} if there’s no evidence those involved wanted a formal close. Might be worth letting others chime in, but I think decreasing the size would increase people’s willingness to respond to requests there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

At some point, a realisation will sink in that certain requests are being deliberately ignored. If that happens, and making more requests be an obviously fruitless exercise, they might wither on the vine... ——Serial ^# 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, the problem is that this has been the subject of multiple noticeboard threads for years and apparently hasn’t noticed that no ones closing the stuff. If you want a symptom of how bad the problem is, finding the prior discussions is difficult because his signature is so present at ANRFC it clogs up the archive search. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni:, ah, I misuderstood. Well; if something has been raised as potential issue, agreed to be one, and the issue continues as before then that rather limits our options. ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll just say there have been a couple times that I've been involved with a discussion and didn't list it here because Cunard had already done it. It would be a shame if those weren't closed just because people got tired of Cunard's postings. I've also been in discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it. I suppose it's possible that Cunard could be posting against the wishes of those involved, but I haven't seen it (then again, it's not a page I really monitor -- I'm just drawing on discussions I've been involved with). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I believe this thread from February to be the last discussion of this topic. My thinking on this hasn't changed since then so I will just quote myself It always difficult for me to assess how backlogged it is because so many of the requests come from one editor who may or may not have even participated in the discussion for which they're asking for a close. Not every discussion needs a formal close and the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: the mass posting of so many discussions makes it harder for me to find the best places to really focus my attention when I turn that way...with the result, I suppose, that you then went elsewhere, and the backlog got longer. Absolutely your prerogative. But I imagine you're not the only one... ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Your supposition about me is correct. I also suspect I'm not the only one who would pitch in sometimes if it were easier to find the closes that most needed attention. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• • Per the suggestion in that thread and here, I’ve gone ahead and marked 10 discussions as  Not done. More probably could be marked as such, but those are the quick ones I was able to clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I've done a couple more of the oldest ones which had quite clearly already been actioned by the participants. I think that Cunard could at least ask the participants if they need a formal close before posting here. I marked as nd one that was on the footie Wikiproject; the participants there might actually positively resent an admin poking their nose in where it wasn't wanted. SpinningSpark 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
      • This is good, for the time being. Now, all things being equal, do we have the means (or the inclination), to stop the issue becoming a perennial one? (Anymore than it is, perhaps.) ——Serial ^# 17:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
• I started closing some of these when it was originally posted, then edit-conflicted with Spinningspark with some "not done" ones that I could close. I'm going to sit this one out for now, but I tried. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Primefac: Sorry for the edit conflict. I've left a note on the requests page. Please don't let me stop you from closing some more. The instructions do recommend using the {{doing}} or {{closing}} templates. SpinningSpark 17:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily going to stop, just going to stop while there is active pruning going on. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you Drmies (talk · contribs) and Primefac (talk · contribs) for your work closing RfCs at WP:ANRFC yesterday. I deeply appreciate your hard work. Drmies, this was a nuanced and very well explained close of a contentious RfC. Primefac, your close here allowed the article to be updated to the version supported by consensus.

  The below is a modified version of my post here. I in the past listed all RfCs at WP:ANRFC. The community's feedback several years ago was that I was posting too many "consensus is clear" RfCs. I responded to their feedback by making changes to my approach. As BU Rob13 wrote in June 2016:

  I'm talking about this most recent listing vs. a month ago. The number of listings went down from roughly three dozen to more like a single dozen, all of which has at least some aspect that didn't seem 100% straightforward. I was the person who originally brought up this issue at AN, and I'm a strong opponent of the idea that we should close all RfCs, but Cunard is a good-faith effort. His listings are a net positive if and only if he continues to list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all. Can I be sure that he isn't just temporarily adjusting due to this discussion? No, but I assume good faith and recognize that this can just wind up at a noticeboard as a pure behavioral issue if he were to go back to blanket listing immediately after this discussion concluded. I value Cunard's contributions as a whole and doubt things will get that far.

  Since June 2016, I have continued to "list them with some discrimination rather than blanket listing them all". I started closing the "consensus is clear" RfCs myself and listing only the remaining RfCs where I think a close would be useful at WP:ANRFC. This significantly reduced the WP:ANRFC backlog. I have become even more discriminate in my close requests by omitting RfCs that look like discussions such as RfCs 3 and 6 in this list by leaving them unclosed or closing them myself. This has further reduced the backlog.

  I have listed RfCs at ANRFC for over eight years since the creation of the board. Why have I consistently spent so much time collating the list and closing RfCs for eight years? I have in mind users like Triptothecottage who may not remember to list an RfC for closure or may not know about WP:ANRFC. I have in mind the RfCs mentioned by Rhododendrites (talk · contribs): "discussions where it seemed like it could use a formal close, but which nobody listed here for one reason or another, and I don't mind having someone else post about it". I do not want the time and effort of the RfCs participants to have gone to waste when an RfC ends without anyone determining whether a consensus has been reached.

  As Scott put it so well here in January 2014:

  Lack of resolution to ongoing debates is a continuing issue on this project. If there are too many things listed here, it's because there are too many things left unfinished. It's a reflection of reality. As Cunard points out in his admirable response in the "September 2013" link above, not having a formal closure can also lead to misinterpretations (or deliberate ignorance) of consensus by persons in disputes, and not provide a recourse for editors attempting to enforce consensus. Having an accepted closure to point to will be immensely useful in many subsequent debates. We should encourage these. Making them is tough work, and I think that's what's putting editors off doing it, not seeing the number that need to be done.

  If an AfD with a rough but not obvious consensus to delete was never closed, the article would remain undeleted. Likewise, if an RfC with a rough but not obvious consensus to make a change to an article was never closed, the article would remain unchanged.

  More concretely, Primefac (talk · contribs) yesterday closed a stale 95-day-old RfC with the result: "There is a narrow margin for converting the pie chart to the 'Pew' version listed below." Primefac then modified the article to use the updated pie chart based on the RfC consensus. If this RfC had not been closed, the article likely would never have been updated.

  This 95-day-old RfC was one of the 12 RfCs yesterday that was marked {{not done}}. If Primefac had not assessed the consensus in the RfC at the same time it was marked not done, a change that had consensus likely never would have been made. For the other RfCs that had been marked as not done, I think closes would have been helpful but will not contest those decisions. I will procedurally close the RfCs and direct editors to create a request at WP:ANRFC if they would like a close.

  Cunard (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I reverted two of the procedural RfC closes after a talk page request. I wrote: "Do you want the consensus for these RfCs to be assessed by a closer at WP:ANRFC, or do you think they do not need to be closed and should be archived without closure?" SharabSalam (talk · contribs) responded: "if they got archived I will restore them. I dont know how to request a closing in WP:ANRFC but I will try. I understand that there is a dispute between you and other editors. I support your position but I dont support your latest closings. They seem WP:Pointy."

  I have made these RfC close requests in part for editors like SharabSalam who do not know how to make a close request at ANRFC. I informed SharabSalam about how to make a close request which SharabSalam has now done for both of the RfCs.

  I made the procedural closes to inform RfC participants that the RfCs would not be formally closed since they had been declined at WP:ANRFC. This is to inform editors who might have intended to request a close at ANRFC but didn't because they saw I had requested the close that if they believe an RfC close would be helpful, they would need to file a close request at WP:ANRFC themselves.

  Cunard (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I dont really know what is going on here. I just thought that there is a dispute between you and that Admin because he seems to be closing request for closers with "Not needed". I dont agree with the admin who was closing those request for closers. All RfCs need closing. Anyone should be able to request closing. Cunard was doing a great job by requesting closer for RfCs.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• All RfCs need closing. - Not so, per WP:RFCEND. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

• I can only speak for myself, but I've always appreciated Cunard's diligent listings of expired RfCs. There were many occasions in which I was going to list a request for closure, but found that Cunard had beaten me to it. I've just relisted WP:RFCL § Talk:One America News Network#RFC on One America News Network - Application of bias descriptor. This RfC is intended to resolve a language dispute that was subject to edit warring, but nobody has implemented the consensus yet, and a {{Dispute inline}} tag remains on the wording in question. — Newslinger talk 19:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
• I think it's fairly outrageous that legitimate closure requests should have to sit ignored for months because people can't be bothered to simply skip the requests signed "Cunard" (if that's how they feel about Cunard's requests). It adds literally seconds to a job they are committing to spend hours on, so that's a remarkably lame argument. I've been on the receiving end of that BS several times, and I didn't know the reason until now. If people are going to abandon the ANRFC system in droves, get rid of it—although we sorely need more uninvolved closers and closures, not less. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I've requested that Cunard stop posting to ANRFC, and I actually take points like Newslinger's above to be an argument in favour of this: yes, Cunard is making some requests that are needed, but if they are needed there's a very high likelihood that someone who is actually involved with the thread will make a request for closure. This problem has been going on for years, and it's made ANRFC one of the most backlogged areas of the project.

Yes, it's super lame that people aren't willing to just skip anything with his signature and look at the others, but part of the problem is that you have no clue if the things with his signature by them are meaningful discussions in need of a close or an obvious no consensus that not even the participants care about anymore. So yes, he may select some RfCs that need to be closed for closure, but the fact that he's the one picking them likely causes there to be a delay in closing. That's disruptive, even if done in good faith.

Tl;dr: I think we've reached the point where we've been having an ongoing discussion for years about one person causing a backlog at ANRFC and have never just asked them to stop outright. I've now asked them to stop outright, not as a sanction, but as a way to see if the page improves. If people notice that because he stops requesting things get closed, we have this sudden crisis on Wikipedia, then we can request he start again. I don't think that will happen, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for closing, TonyBallioni, I appreciate it. I've been accustomed to seeing closing statements on RfCs, especially ones about heated topics, but I suppose that changing this expectation would make editors feel less dependent on closing statements for implementing consensus. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to wax philosophical here, but the idea of a wiki is that it is a lightweight collaboration tool that doesn't need formal approval mechanisms to make changes to published content. On the English Wikipedia, we've developed a complex dispute resolution system because well... we're the 6th largest website of all time and it's needed. Even then, most of our content and disputes do not need formal approval. If there is consensus on the talk page, as there was at One America, someone can just implement it. By moving towards an every RfC must be closed mentality, we're moving away from a wiki mindset, and it causes things to stagnate. We want our editors to feel comfortable implementing consensus when it is clear it exists, which is why we shouldn't be listing everything at ANRFC :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I responded here. Cunard (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Possible solutions going forward

I suggest that we should tighten the guidelines for posting new requests on the board. If we still have regular repeat offenders after that, then that is a behavioral issue that we already have the mechanisms to deal with. Here are some suggestions for possible guidelines;

• The nominator has requested the close
• A participant in the RFC has requested the close
• The RfC is on a substantive issue of policy (not a discussion of clarity or style)
• An administrator has requested the close
• If the RfC has very low participation, the issue would be better settled at Wikipedia:Third opinion or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

Adding one or more of those, or something similar, should do the trick. SpinningSpark 22:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• This is the wrong forum to discuss changes to the guidelines of that page since WT:ANRFC exists. I also object to listing an adminstrator requests the close as administrators have no special authority over content and while RfCs can be dispute resolution mechanisms and thus quasi in the sysop realm, this gives sysops more authority than I think we/they should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm not a regular here. I was really just trying to respond to user:Serial Number 54129's comment and get a discussion going on what should be done going forward. It was not really meant to be a solid proposal, just some bullets to give the discussion something to focus on. What I don't think is a solution is leaving requests to fester unanswered. That results in frustration for good faith nominators and loss of faith in the adminstration of the site. SpinningSpark 05:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Requiring that requests meet one of the first three points above seems reasonable (I agree with Barkeep on the fourth point being kind of inappropriate). Though there are occasionally cases where the participants forget about an RfC but an unimplemented consensus has been reached, in which case Cunard's listings can be helpeful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm with the majority that all of the first three are fine, definitely not the fourth. In regards to where the participants have forgotten about it, but if closed would cause a change, that's reasonable, but I find it better to first drop a new section on the talk page calling attention to it and see if people are happy to handle it themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If the participants have forgotten about it, that's a good sign nothing really needed to change. Not trying to be dismissive, but sometimes lack of action is a form of consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

If this proposal helps to prevent the dreadful bloating of the ANRFC board with requests that don't need closing, then I certainly support it. Tony and Barkeep have hit the nail on the head above with the reasons why it's not a place admins choose to spend their time.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to add my thanks to Tony for sorting this out. It has been a problem for several years. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The second and third points seem fair (nominators are participants so the first one isn't needed). Closing contentious discussions is one of the nastiest admin jobs around and having a massive bloated backlog is definitely off-putting to anyone considering helping out. Hut 8.5 13:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question. I used to close RFC's all the time until I was asked to slow down/stop. I have not done as many closings since then. If there is a desire for more clerking on that board, I wouldn't mind helping out. A lot has changed since I stopped clerking it, but I have played it safe by avoiding doing so because I am not an admin. Would folks mind at all too much that a non-admin closed a contentious discussion or should I still avoid doing so? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd want to see why people asked you to stop. But there is generally no need for an admin to close things. I've gone trough that list and closed a number of them when I've had time. I think it's useful (and honestly I may start asking people at RfA if they've closed many, seems like a darn good way to judge people's ability to gauge consensus and explain their thoughts. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I can provide you the reasoning later tonight when I'm on Desktop. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @Hobit: As you can see here, several admins had major WP:CIR concerns with me; so my adopter, Swarm requested I hold off on closing discussions for the time being. That was a little more than a year ago now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: Just so we're clear, you've moved well past the point of ruffling feathers as a newbie and absolutely no part of me thinks that any of that unfortunate episode is still relevant today. You know that, right? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Swarm: I do! It's just that you never responded when I asked if I should start closing things again a few months ago. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Oh man, I'm sorry MJL. :( I've had a bad habit lately of clearing talk page notifications with the intention of coming back to them, and then forgetting about the messages. That reminds me, I should go check on that right now. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
            • @Swarm: lmao it's all good! I do the same thing tbh It gets worse when you admin on another wiki.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• The problem was, as Tony said, one user consistently flooding the board over the course of years. Said user has recieved the renewed complaints at this time and has made a pledge to substantially scale back their use of the board. I don't see the need to implement bureaucratic regulations in response to one specific problem that has resolved itself. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure that that was the only problem. The really old ones are still not getting closed (except for those that were declined in the initial cull). I did a few myself, but stopped when it became apparent that no one else was taking part (perhaps just picking off the low-lying fruit). I don't want to adopt this board as my personal domain. It is shameful that a request has been open for 321 days at an admin board. SpinningSpark 14:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Valery Tsepkalo

I need help. The article about Valery Tsepkalo (this is the new Pro-Russian candidate for President of Belarus) is protected from any criticism by two participants: Brigh7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Yury.vait (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The other day, the media [21] that the article was being cleared of criticism (the publication was about a Russian article, but the participants are the same). Please take the article under review and add it to your watch list. Thanks.--VladMamul (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Backlog on WP:RFPP

There's a bunch of entries that need looking at, including one I'd tackle myself had I not been edit warring in it (haha)--List of lynching victims in the United States. There's a concerted effort by what appears to be one editor who's IP hopping around to insert a long list of recent black victims of police violence, an effort that is not gaining traction in the history or on the talk page. See the talk page, where they propose a political/OR argument; look also at their edit summaries and comments: you'd never guess there were different IP addresses associated with those edits. Drmies (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I did that one; will try a couple of others at RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

There has been a backlog at UAA since yesterday, and it just keeps on getting longer. Can some uninvolved admin kindly help out? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Just looked at it—appears any backlog has been resolved. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I looked at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention; but if I look at Category:Wikipedia usernames with possible policy issues ... that has a lot of entries. Should we be concerned with both of these locations? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Today's AfD list

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel (The Last of Us) is effecting the alignment on todays list, can't quite see it to fix, something with that html block quote code I think. Govvy (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed I think, the big list containing all the blockquotes started with a <ul> tag for an unordered list and then ended with an </ol> tag for an ordered list. Not sure why that particular error ended up causing an indent specifically, but fixing it has made it go away. ~ mazca ^talk 11:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

SNOW close of AfD with significant social-media driven new user participation

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. I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman as keep per WP:SNOW. The AfD received significant participation on both sides from new users that were unfamiliar with the AfD process and made non-policy driven arguments, and a portion of those were sockpuppet accounts. Additionally, there was a moderate amount of interpersonal sniping. Since there was already an overwhelmingly clear consensus, and the possibility of further disruption was high, I performed the non-admin closure. I am inviting administrators to review the closure and undo it if it is deemed necessary. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As the Wikipedian who initially only wanted to fix an incomplete AfD but then stumbled into an apparent hornets nest after posting a comment weakly supporting deletion, let me give you my summary. At face value, the article looks too much like a WP:RESUME to not be cautious: an aspiring academic and semi-public figure looking to increase their profile with some WP:SELFPROMO, like we had plenty over the years. The article is full of puffery and academic credentials that are nowhere to be found except on self-published blog posts or interviews. The only two relevant third-party sources were, in my mind, an article by the Wall Street Journal, and another by the New York Times, both of which mention Opoku-Agyeman in passing while broadly discussing race and gender inequality in the economics discipline. In my opinion that wasn't enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC, but then others pointed out the notability of the subject due to her more recent hashtag activism (which in itself already led to the article Black Birders Week), which is certainly a valid point given that we do have biographical articles of such activist, like Isis Anchalee or Ayakha Melithafa.

Anyhow, while the above could certainly explain some disagreement like in any "normal" AfD, there's apparently a more questionable backstory to it. The article in question was created on June 5 after the subject implicitly asked her 8,000+ Twitter followers to do so the previous night, and one Wikipedian among them obliged. The next day the article was nominated for deletion by another Wikipedian using their sock-puppet account, apparently out of fear of being subjected to some form of online harassment if done under their actual account. That in itself is worrisome, but was seemingly a correct prediction since shortly after the AfD started the subject again took to her Twitter about it, claiming to be the victim of some sort of racially biased conspiracy, and essentially sent her followers over here to WP:MEATPUPPET the discussion. That explains the flood of template-style comments on the AfD, along the lines of "Hi, I haven't been using my Wikipedia account for years, but I'm just here to confirm that subject is notable." Unfortunately it also led to overzealous editors like Nfitz completely derailing any calm discussion by crying racism and comparing the AfD to people being killed in the streets.

And so here we are. I support The Squirrel Conspiracy's decision to close this AfD, since it was inching towards Godwin's law by the minute. On a broader perspective, though, I wonder if this is the new normal on Wikipedia: incite your social media followers to WP:SELFPROMO by proxy, then rile them up with conspiracy claims to protect your personal vanity. This is not a hypothetical, since exactly the same happened last night at AfD/Corina Newsome and AfD/Earyn McGee, where the subjects actively solicited WP:MEATPUPPETS via their Twitter; both articles were speedy-kept by creffett amidst the chaos. But is this the new normal? In my 15+ years at Wikipedia I have never seen anything like this, and quite frankly last night I didn't know what else to do but to ask for help on WP:3RD, and even inquiring about the possibility of semi-protection for the AfD to stop the deluge of WP:SPA. In the end, I don't care about this one article in particular, but about the whole process we Wikipedians established over the better part of the last two decades. --bender235 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

+1. I think a new AfD needs to be started, overseen by an administrator to weed out meat puppets who haven't edited outside the AfD or are coming out of woodworks to participate in the AfD. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This was a whole "thing" yesterday evening. The filer also filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corina Newsome and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earyn McGee, both of which I speedy-kept last night (no rationale, appeared to be vexatious nominations, no delete !votes), but I did not close this one because there appeared to be a good-faith delete !vote, though I did semi-protect it. My observations:

• The two that I closed were clearly the subjects of canvassing, presumably via Twitter as bender235 linked above.
• The one I did not close was also clearly the subject of canvassing, but this time on both sides - several new accounts showed up to !vote delete in that one in addition to the aforementioned keep !voters. I opted to semi-protect the AfD to deal with the influx of canvassed voters, and if that was wrong I will take my lashings for it, but it seemed to be the most effective solution at the time.
  • There also appears to have been some on-wiki notification of this discussion which brought a lot of experienced editors: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anna_Gifty_Opoku-Agyeman. I take no stance right now on whether or not that notification was appropriate.
• I find it odd that so many people cited WP:BASIC - I'm not a regular at AfD, but I'd never seen that cited before (usually people cite GNG). I assume a lot of it was someone citing BASIC early on and later !voters following it, but still a little weird to me.

creffett (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Good close, don't re-open - I also saw this happening in real time and inspected the articles in question, the Twitter threads that highlighted the "pro" camp and a thread on https://www.econjobrumors.com/ that was pushing the other way in the "con" camp, canvassing for deletion. That thread in EconJobRumors since been deleted [22]. I agree with Bender235 that I have never seen anything quite like this in my many years of editing. I'm actually surprised it doesn't happen more often given how much social media there is. I disagree with TryKid - let's not re-open this. Taking out the questionable opinions there, the overwhelming majority of votes was to keep. If we can reduce drama, we should opt for that. Clean up the article and make it adhere to our style and policies. But re-litigating this is a terrible idea. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually agreeing with TryKid, the AfD should be re-opened; not least for procedural reasons. I feel like we need to set a precedent for discouraging this kind of astroturfed meat-puppetry in article creation and AfD discussions. Again, this is not so much about this particular individual or her WP:RESUME, but about the process in general. If we let tactics like this succeed, the floodgates are open. --bender235 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Good close. Thank you, The Squirrel Conspiracy. Bishonen | tålk 14:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC).
• Good close, don't reopen. Disclosure, I did !vote in the AfD (my vote was for a snowball keep, i.e. what Squirrel Conspiracy did). Just noting that developments & my own further reading following my vote only reinforced my belief that a snowball keep was the correct outcome. This is not a borderline case, and it serves the reading public and Wikipedia poorly to have such an AfD remain open longer than necessary. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

While I agree that yesterday's AfD didn't look good, may I ask for your suggestion on how we can prevent this from becoming the new go-to tactic for minor Twitter celebrities with some 10,000 followers to push for their own Wikipedia shrine? It's a serious concern, since we had three such cases just last night, all of which successful as of now, and I'm pretty sure plenty others were taking notice. As a matter of fact, Opoku-Agyeman is taking a victory lap on Twitter as we speak, congratulating her followers for turning her vanity WP:RESUME into some sort of milestone of social justice. --bender235 (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Here's my take (I didn't participate in the AfDs, but watched it unfold here and later saw some of the tweets).

People use Twitter to influence AfDs all the time. It's important to remember that people who aren't already Wikipedians don't realize (and don't really have a reason to care) that Wikipedia doesn't like this. Ditto their followers, who often comment anonymously or sign up for accounts to !vote. This happens an awful lot. What typically happens is that it creates a lot of extra work/drama, but ultimately when the discussion is closed, the closer will more or less dismiss !votes from people who are only here for that reason, and will focus on the more experienced editors' policy/guideline-based arguments. This is all standard stuff at AfD.

It gets more complicated is if experienced editors learn about disputes off-wiki and participate because of it. In this case, however, we had a string of AfDs nominated by a now indeffed single-purpose sock puppet and canvassing to delete (followed by canvassing to keep). It's hard to blame anyone who knows about our policies from intervening in this abuse of process.

Ultimately, though I see a lot of comments on Twitter about this being an example of Wikipedia's bias and hostility towards newcomers, the number of actual Wikipedians involved in working to delete these articles is barely nonzero. This is an example of Wikipedia working, energy-heavy as it may be. People familiar with our policies and guidelines are addressing any outstanding issues with the articles, are enforcing our standards, and we have some nice articles because of it. We can't prevent a good faith editor from nominating one of these articles, but look at how these went -- it would just take up more time/effort to go through the process again at this point.

We would like for people not to talk on Twitter about ongoing AfDs, but it's inevitable. Best we can do in the future is be quicker to speedy keep bad faith nominations, semi-protect to stem the tide of new accounts, and do what we normally do: focus on strength of arguments not number of !votes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a canned template that can be added to AFD or other discussions that we know have drawn attention from outside WP that briefly explains "AFD is not a vote"? Not to dissuade input but to remind them we work on policy-based arguments and admins will ignore non-policy-based votes, and to provide links to any guidance pages of how to participate in AFDs? Stuff like this would be helpful in a case like this. --Masem (t) 17:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

{{notavote}} :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

From the responses here, It's likely that the article would be kept again. But I still think a new admin overseen AfD should be started because process is important. It shouldn't feel like that some people with followers and an aura of "social justice" can get away by releasing a mob on Wikipedia. How is this "Wikipedia is racist because they applied due process on minorities" of the Twitter warriors different from "Wikipedia is controlled by the Establishment because they applied GNG on cryptocurrencies" of the cypto cultists? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The process is important, yes. It's strange that the part of the process you're most concerned about is this "social justice" business and not that the whole process began in bad faith by a sock puppet, and that the first !vote was by a sock puppet. It's strange to think that "process is important" could be interpreted as making sure those sock puppets get their way. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why it matters whether the AfD was started by a sock-puppet or not. After all it's the validity of the argument that matters, not the seniority or expert status of the nominator. For the same reason we don't thread an AfD as a vote, but only consider the arguments. --bender235 (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: "... when the discussion is closed, the closer will more or less dismiss !votes from people who are only here for that reason, and will focus on the more experienced editors' policy/guideline-based arguments."

Unfortunately this didn't happen. Neither did it with AfD/Corina Newsome nor AfD/Earyn McGee. All three AfDs were essentially panic-closed to prevent an unproductive non-discussion from escalating. --bender235 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like both happened. Close of bad faith nominations + deescalation + snow close of discussion clearly trending in one direction = good. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not how it unfolded. The "trend in one direction" was due to people funneled into the AfD via Twitter, and recycling previous !votes. Hence the repeated unusual referral to WP:BASIC, as creffett pointed out. In AfD/Corina Newsome and AfD/Earyn McGee, the copy-pasting went so far as to people not even caring about stating their actual keep or delete verdict, instead just mimicking the previous posts. Neither of those were credible AfDs by any standard. --bender235 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I object to the characterizations of the other two as a panic close. I closed them because they were bad-faith nominations, and I (and, I think, just about any other admin) would have speedy-kept regardless of the number of canvassed votes as long as there were no good-faith delete votes per policy. Note that I specifically refused to speedy-close Opoku-Agyeman for exactly that reason. creffett (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pardon my choice of words. My point was that neither of those three AfD were genuine discussions. --bender235 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Another aspect to this, is long before it showed up on Twitter yesterday, there have been numerous threads on the www.econjobrumors.com forum over the last few months, a completely anonymous forum, rife with racial issues. There have been derogatory threads there for months about the subject, where they frequently refer to her as "Grifty" instead of "Gifty". In the last 24 hours, numerous old threads have been deleted, making it difficult to see the full extent of it - one had the subject line "A message from Black Dlcks White Chicks.com supporting BLM". The three AFDs yesterday for black women, were all created by a regular poster at that forum "Economist 4738". I've been accused of shouting racism, and derailing the AFD - however the AFD creator had been blocked as a sock-puppet and the other two AFDs closed before I ever commented; this AFD was derailed long before my involvement, and only the ill-timed support of a bad-faith nomination by an editor who should have enough experience to know otherwise kept it open so long. Sometimes racism is racism - and if it wasn't racism, it's pretty tone-death given the current state of emergency in that country; it's not necessary to AGF when it's clear that the nomination itself was in bad faith. Either way, given that the AFD was created in very bad faith by a sock-puppet, who clearly was involved in lobbying against the subject, and all the meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry going on in favour of deletion - the close was good. It arguably meets GNG as well ... it's not the great GNG evidence in the world, but beyond the strongest two references is a very wide pool of material. Nfitz (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what seems to happen in the underbellies of the internet, we go by our notability criteria and those only. And besides, any claim of unequal treatment because of racial and/or gender bias would have to be backed by showing the existence of some Wikipedia articles about a non-female, non-black "student of economics", because otherwise where is the bias? Further, with regards to your sock-puppet argument: the nominator of the AfD pretty much openly stated that their motivation was to avoid retaliation from an angry Twitter mob, which after a brief look at last night's Twitter storm doesn't seem too far fetched to me. It is actually unfortunate that it has come to this. But again, regardless of the presumed motivation on either side of the canvassed !votes, I strongly oppose opening an avenue for any minor social media personality to brute force their way to a Wikipedia vanity shrine. We're inviting chaos if we close this chapter by implicitly admitting that this "WP:SELFPROMO by proxy" is a viable strategy. --bender235 (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

If any or all of the three AfDs were opened in good faith by an experienced Wikipedia editor then I think they should be reopened with semi-protect. The potential for trolling or for numbers of social media ivotes outweighs the need to keep these three open for honest experienced IP votes. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Where's the bias? Are you claiming that there's isn't systemic racial bias in either the country that the subject, sockpuppet, and IP editors all came from, or on the forum that the sockpuppet came from, and has been harassing her for months? They literaly outed their priviledge, by trying to openly IAR and publicly use sock-puppets, because they were afraid of the ramifications of using their regular Wiki identities. We should be more worried about clear WP:BIAS than trying to protect the purity of the AFD system. Besides, it's not like there's a lack of reliable sources on the subject - far more than some white Americans that have featured on the Front page. If there was nothing about the subject, then I could see your point (though even then, given the sock-puppetry and meat-puppetry by the propononent, the AFD should be closed and restarted) - but given that even you are noting some borderline references - the less said about this the better. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nfitz: I wasn't talking about the country as a whole, let alone some dodgy internet message board. I was talking about the alleged bias on Wikipedia. If there was any, then there surely must be plenty of WP:RESUME style articles about non-female, non-black "pre-doctoral students" (NY Times) that some ominous cabal of Wikipedians is shielding from deletion. Maybe you can point some of them out to me, because I'm not aware of any. In fact, over the years I have suggested numerous of these types of articles for deletion myself (cited above in my opening statement, and as I notice upon review, all male). --bender235 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

To assert that was no bias here on Wikipedia by the creator and other now-blocked sock-puppets in this AFD completely baffles and astounds me. I just can't fathom this way of thinking. Yesterday when confronted with claims that this nomination was probably motivated by racism, you said "I don't care who created this AfD and why". I disagree with you - I think racism is something we should care about as a motive for creating the AFD. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe after almost 16 years on Wikipedia I have internalized WP:AGF too much, but I indeed refuse to judge any argument based on assumptions about the originator's online habitat or general ideology, whatever -ism it may be. --bender235 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nfitz, for what it's worth, I didn't mean to accuse you specifically of derailing the discussion, I just meant to point out that calling someone "racist" is often used that way and so should be used very cautiously. I apologize if it came off that way. Also, I wasn't aware of the econjobrumors context when I made that comment, so it looked to me like you were drawing the conclusion soley based on the choice of sending the articles of three black women for AfD (which is certainly problematic, but IMO not quite enough on its own to justifiably call someone racist). With that context, it does seem like a more justifiable claim. creffett (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• Good close, don't reopen The three AfDs were started by sockpuppets accounts with a vengeance from an off-wiki site and no real claim against notability was ever presented by them, nor any attempt to analyze existing sources in the article or outside of it. It was never a proper AfD discussion in the first place. And sufficient sources to showcase notability were presented anyways (or already existent in the articles) as it was. This was all just a waste of editing time, honestly. Silverseren^C 19:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion be as it may, but writing that "no real claim against notability was ever presented" is dishonest. Both initial !voters clearly cited a perceived violation of WP:SELFPROMO. A third !voter argued that the article was essentially solicited by the subject from her social media followers, a claim that can easily be verified. You may disagree with the veracity of their argument, but don't make it sound like they were just vandalizing. --bender235 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Self-soliciting an article is irrelevant if an independent Wikipedian decides to make a proper article because they agree with the subject that they are notable and have the references to prove it. Unless you're trying to cast some sort of aspersion on editor Yul B. Allwright in their creation of the article following notability requirements? Silverseren^C 19:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, this may very well be your opinion, to which you are absolutely entitled to (I personally disagree when it comes to solicited articles, and have generally been applying WP:COI rather strictly in the past). But don't write that there was never any kind of reason for the AfD provided by the initial !voters. They did. But for personal concerns of retribution they raised them with sock-puppets, which I don't see as a reason to hold against them. I'm speaking from experience: not six months ago I was singled out and targeted by Breitbart and their online mob as a "left-wing and anti-Trump editor" for initiating the blacklisting of The Epoch Times, so I understand their concerns. --bender235 (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
• CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
• Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
• QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

RfC on adding edit filter to Facebook links

There is currently a RfC on the Reliable sources noticeboard about whether Facebook links should be a subject to an edit filter, and/or be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. Your comments would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks and disruptive editing by Miko2020

• Miko2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As if adding OR to articles wasn't bad enough, Miko2020 has decided to slowly but surely take it to the next level with personal attacks, escalating from this (see edit summary), this (see comment) to this and culminating with this comment left on my talk page.

Here's a quick look at some of the edits of the user who's attacking me and accusing me of vandalism:

• Tajine. [23] Unjustified sourced content removal.

• Couscous. [24] This speaks for itself and was reverted by another editor.

• M'semen. [25] Same as above.

• Ras el hanout. [26] Same as above.

• Baghrir. [27] OR reverted by myself.

• Maghrebi mint tea. [28] Unjustified change and a personal attack to boot.

• Kaftan.[29] Sourced content removal, addition of factually incorrect OR and content based on a misrepresented source, which I explained on the talk page. Instead of addressing what I said, they created an article that they filled with OR and introduced the same misrepresented source. You could be forgiven for thinking that they are new and maybe don't know about WP:VERIFY, but this edit of theirs on another article leaves no doubt that they do.

In fact, their edits are almost undistinguishable from that of another editor (Jamaru25) whose edits consist mainly of adding OR, misrepresenting sources and even using fictitious sources. While I don't mind cleaning up the disruptive edits, unwarranted personal attacks such as this are not something that I'm willing to tolerate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Miko2020 left a message on my talk page complaining, falsely, that M.Bitton had been replacing Morocco with Algeria. I looked at a couple of the articles Miko2020 mentioned to me and saw that, on the contrary, there were cases where Miko was removing references to Algeria and Tunisia so that only Morocco remained, or else was replacing North Africa with Morocco. In a case where I'd reverted one of Miko2020's edits, I was restoring Tunisia and Algeria based on sourced information. Largoplazo (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblock request review for AlexanderHovanec

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.

---

AlexanderHovanec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(User still globally locked, but that's for the stewards on Meta.)

User has an extensive history of declined unblock requests, socking, resocking, and declined UTRS appeals. Not all of them visible to reviewing eyes. Many of those UTRS appeals are no longer available, making it harder to evaluate. Most recently, I declined UTRS 30529 and responded thusly: :

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. Please describe how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked.

To be unblocked you must address your edit warring and your use of photos. You must agree to 1RR-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Other_revert_rules

You must agree to not add images to Wikipedia. If you are unblocked on Commons, you must not upload images there for use on Wikipedia.

You also have created concerns about sourcing, especially on biographies of living persons. You must address your adding of unsourced poorly and unsourced content to Wikipedia.

Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks)

Your account is globally locked. Should you successfully request unblock on en.wiki, you will still need to ask the Stewards-- stewardswikimedia.org.to unlock your account.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.

User then responded agreeably to my conditions in UTRS 30600 thusly

I will: - Abstain from reverting edits (edit warring) - Stop uploading pictures on Commons to be used on Wikipedia - Be strict with my sources and abstain from adding irrelevant information - Listen to any instructions given by administrators - Never sock-puppet again (I haven’t sock-puppeted in roughly a year and I’ll continue to not sock-puppet.)

I gave it some time (~24 hours) to await further input and then unblocked, but it was brought to my attention afterward that WP:THREESTRIKES probably applies. (Not immediately obvious in reviewing of talk page.) So I seek confirmation or rejection of my decision to unblock. I don't know how user would reply as globally locked. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 02:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Request If the unblock is overturned, could someone please indicate on user talk page that he is CBANned with a permalink to this discussion? --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 11:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reading their talk page and the reasons for blocks (Copyvios, BLP vios, socking, socking and more socking), I don't think I'd trust this user for 5 minutes. Additionally, the previous 2 blocking admins expressed concern which gives me pause; unless they agree I would not support. The global lock seems rather lame (blocked on Commons, blocked on enWiki, flooding UTRS), so I don't put much stock into that. I think I would feel better if a CU could confirm a clean sock record. But before I could support (if ever), I would need a better reason than just agreeing to your terms; they must state how they will do it within the appropriate policies, and then state a convincing understanding of each policy. Their current agreement is most unconvincing. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, this is precisely the problem I have. With previously dealing with this editor, they would frequently say one thing, and then get caught doing the exact opposite elsewhere if you watched his edits. Sometimes with block evading, sometimes with things as simple as agreeing to not make unsourced edits, and then proceeding to make additions to an article without adding a source. And then he’d argue with you at length, about things like this where it was clear as day that he was lying. It makes it very difficult to trust him. Sergecross73 msg me 04:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm open to the possibility of him being unblocked with editing restrictions, but I would also like better examples of what he plans to work on and how. As for trusting him, it's difficult. He constructed stories and identities behind several socks, claiming different names, ages, genders, locations, background such as working in various industries and attending different schools, UTRS claims of visiting this friend or that friend and being caught unfairly in sweeps of someone they "never heard of", being sisters, brothers, and everything in between. It was elaborate and calculated and went on for at least a year. I like to believe in giving people a chance and redeeming blocked editors but it's difficult on this one. -- ferret (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's been over two years and he still wants to come back, so maturity should be taken into consideration. I had good interactions with the editor during his time here, and in this case believe that another chance is warranted. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• If I recall right, you didn’t even support his block after he was caught socking countless times... Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I suspect we're being trolled. It takes work to get globally locked, and this guy socked a lot. Why would you want to come back to that reputation? Guy (help!) 20:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I’ve wondered this too. I can only guess it’s because of how frequently he’s caught socking. The editor is prolific at socking, but also prolific at getting caught and blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 23:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• He is banned per WP:3X so he'd need a community unban here before he could start editing again, but more importantly the account is globally locked, and I generally do not think we should be unblocking users until they have dealt with the global lock on their account. Reblock locally and tell him to appeal to the stewards. If they unlock (unlikey... locks tend to be hard to get out of) we can discuss then. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Deepfriedokra, I don’t think there’s consensus here to unban, and anyway, he needs to deal with the lock first. I think it makes sense for you to reblock and tell them the stewards email. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Lock dealt with. Still oppose as no reason to believe they’ll be an asset to the project. Also suggest reblocking as they are still CBAN’d here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• As a non-admin who dealt somewhat extensively with this user, I'm confused as to why this was unblocked without discussion to begin with - he socked extensively and created so much disruption he had to be globally locked. It seems incredibly premature to have unblocked without a discussion and community input on conditions. His word isn't enough. Praxidicae (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Ferret: An editor who invents "stories and identities behind several socks, claiming different names, ages, genders, locations, background such as working in various industries and attending different schools, UTRS claims of visiting this friend or that friend and being caught unfairly in sweeps of someone they "never heard of", being sisters, brothers, and everything in between [which] was elaborate and calculated and went on for at least a year" may have a role on the project; but not yet. ——Serial ^# 17:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• It's one of those unblocks that makes me breath in through my clenched teeth. I've just had a look at their behaviour on Commons too, and there's a massive issue with their copyright understanding/flagrant disregard for copyright legislation, and for that alone I need to oppose both an unblock here and an unlock globally. Nick (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• If someone could close tihs, I'll reblock as a CBAN with a permalink to this thread in the block notice. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

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

RFPP backlog

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 all, it looks like there is a backlog over at WP:RFPP. There are almost 40 requests with a few more than a day old. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm working through the BLPs now...-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

user Sms2sms

The Sms2sms (talk · contribs) is only active in the English Wikipedia to continue the conflict of the deWP on discussion pages. See his contributions (German)-131.117.153.103 (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• They had been using their enwiki page to talk to the .de administrator that blocked them, but on 26 April posted that any further discussion should be on their meta page (since when there has been no activity) so I don't think there's anything to do here at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Evelynkwapong539

This user has been making edits about Looney Tunes Cartoons, but has had a really rude attitude in their edit history when it comes people who disagree with their edits. I just want this user to understand that it's really not cool to have this attitude. c 14;51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please provide evidence in the form of diffs. El_C 14:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_%28season_1%29&type=revision&diff=960970798&oldid=960970723 , title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_(season_1)&diff=prev&oldid=961088536title=Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_(season_1)&diff=prev&oldid=961088536 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boo!_AppeTweet&diff=prev&oldid=960973304 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&diff=prev&oldid=960601738 , https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Looney_Tunes_Cartoons_characters&diff=prev&oldid=959726277

Hope this is enough Noelephant 15;01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Noelephant: There's now a report at WP:AN/EW over this, so if you wish to comment there... There's also a discussion on the relevant article talk page, which is the best bet to resolve this without any further drama. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Will do, I'm just going to let this settle, was really not trying to edit war but I can see where it can be assumed as such, thanks again. Noelephant 15:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Evelynkwapong539 was not informed of this report, Noelephant. I have done this for you. I did, however, issue a warning to them to remain civil. El_C 15:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

George Floyd film career allegations

There's a rumor on the internet that George Floyd appeared in an adult film. This is being reported on some websites (including porn websites), but AFAIK, not in any actual RSes. I don't think we're anywhere near the level of RS coverage where we would even consider including this content, though I could be wrong about that. Editors have been adding this content to the various Floyd articles, and talk pages. It's been a bunch of different editors, but almost all new accounts or IPs. The articles themselves have been semiprotected, which has more or less stopped the addition of this content in mainspace. However, on talk pages like Talk:George Floyd and Talk:Killing of George Floyd, IPs and new editors are repeatedly making edit requests or otherwise raising the issue, sometimes not linking to any sources, other times linking to substandard sources (blogs) or really inappropriate sources (porn websites). My question is: can/should anything be done? First, should these talk page discussions be deleted, closed, or archived? (There is some mild edit warring, with some editors deleting these sections outright, and others restoring them.) Should the talk pages be protected? Should an edit filter be used? Should we just let it be? What is the protocol? Thanks in advance, Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Per BLPTALK, at least one section where some discussion that explains why the information won't be included due to lack of RS, should probably be kept, closed, and then, if needed linked to via a talk page FAQ, so that if a new editor comes by to ask/add the same, the information or new talk page section can be removed and you can point to the FAQ/archived thread as to why instead of having to explain over and over again. I don't know why that information is even relevant (what info is specific to him on George Floyd can be summarized on the event page, making extraeous details like that even if sourcable not needed, per BLP) so just establishing the consensus against it once and being able to point to it should be sufficient to revert all future attempts to add or talk about it. --Masem (t) 18:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess the one section is Talk:George Floyd#George Floyd a film actor, and El C dropped an admin note there laying out a protocol. Thanks, C! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Anytime, Levivich. Yes, my evaluation of the (unsourced or poorly-sourced) film career mention and its prohibition therefrom, applies across the wiki. El_C 17:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Get help drafting RFCs

The "regulars" at WT:RFC have been talking about some common problems we see in RFCs, and we are going to try a bit of an experiment this month. This month, you can ask for help with writing your RFC question at WT:RFC.

This is not required, but it may be helpful. If you are all lucky, then having us provide a little experienced advice may reduce the number of RFCs that get mentioned here. I particularly recommend this when:

• a group of editors is already in conflict or someone is saying that a proposed RFC question isn't 'neutral' enough,
• you're starting a "major" RFC (e.g., significant changes to a policy or to a contentious article), and
• someone wants to hold a vote on what the wording of a sentence should be.

Feel free to refer any and all new/future RFCs our direction. If editors want this service, then we may make it permanent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This certainly looks like an excellent idea, as long as the people giving the help are better placed than the people asking for it in terms of neutrality, and knowledge of Wikipedia processes. Many RFCs don't get past one of the first hurdles of having a neutrally worded question. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Restore page and allow all editors to edit while AFD is ongoing

Any chance an admin could restore Derek Chauvin to this edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derek_Chauvin&oldid=960677089 . Also, could you remove the edit protection? I think it will make the AFD more objective and allow editors (who are interested) to work on the article. No evidence of behavior problems here, I don't think.Casprings (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Casprings, that version has a speedy tag on it, so probably not the best? My suggestion is to leave it as-is, per WP:BLP, and link to an old version in the AfD so people can read it. Just my $0.02. Guy (help!) 20:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Anti-harassment RfC open

The Arbitration Committee has opened the anti-harassment RfC, and invites discussion from interested editors. Maxim_(talk) 13:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Anti-harassment RfC open

The RfC is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism

This user seems intent on vandalism using the Nazi word if anyone has time to deal with it -----Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Listing on AIV is fine for disruption of that nature, by the way. El_C 05:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks and noted - was not aware of that link -----Snowded ^TALK 05:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what the fellow was placing on my userpage? but it must of been a stinker. Thanks for reverting him/her & seeing him/her escorted out the Wiki door. GoodDay (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Anytime, GoodDay. Yes, it was ugly. El_C 12:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

ENGAGE issues

Typically we have responded to WP:ENGAGE problems by blocking until the user begins to engage on their User talk page. Given that we now have partial blocks, I wonder if we should adopt a recommended practice of partial blocking from main space in such cases? I have it in mind that this could become a templated response with the aim of being less bitey than a full block, especially because it allows them to do the exact thing we want them to do, which is to discuss their changes on article talk pages. Guy (help!) 13:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I've already been doing that. It is a sound approach that minimizes damage to the editor in question, leaving avenues of communication and dispute resolution more open-ended. El_C 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Paul August ☎ 13:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, sounds like a good approach. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Sounds like a good idea to me. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, absolutely agree. Glen 18:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sounds good to this non-admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Theabyssinian

User has recreated deleted articles many, many times and created pages and contributions with little/no refs many times, as you can see on their talk page. Worth looking into. Doublah (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC close review, please?

A few hours ago I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that they feel my close was mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I will be delighted to self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. Looks like a well-thought-out, detailed and comprehensive close. El_C 13:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse close, as neutral who took no part in the RfC. A well thought-out, nuanced close of a pretty obfuscating discussion. ——Serial ^# 13:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

A masterpiece. You closed the discussion with the only possible result, and you gave some helpful hints for next steps from a neutral third party. You may take the rest of the day off if you like. Guy (help!) 13:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse. "No consensus" is the only possible result there, and those uninvolved helpful suggestions are above and beyond the call of duty. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse, as the only logical choice. The added suggestions seem quite helpful in starting a discussion towards compromise. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Bundled AFD on hoax articles and stale socking

Hello! I need help/guidance about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaitabare. I would like opinion on whether a category can ever be included in a bundle at an AFD. More importantly though, if the AFD can not be salvaged, it should probably be closed by an admin, summarising things I absolutely should not have done, and advising the proper procedures. Especially, about alleging socking, it looked fairly WP:DUCKY to me but how do I go about establishing that, if I should do it before I can bring that up at AFD? I understand ANI doesn't take stale cases, and SPI has told me once or twice not to report stale accounts. There are surely better places to ask these questions one at a time (like I probably should have done the AFD), but it's a sort of an against the clock issue, since it pertains to an ongoing AFD. So, please forgive me the things I have done wrong, and can we please discuss this here? Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

IMHO the cat. should not be in the AfD; strike it and proceed with the AfD containing articles only. If the articles are deleted the cat can then be speedily deleted as a C1 CSD. Cats should never be brought to AfD, UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

UnitedStatesian, thank you for responding. I have removed the category from my nomination. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CFD for categories. Sorry, when I initially saw your nom I thought it was of legit VDCs created by me. Unfortunately Nepal has now become like India and Pakistan and are subject to crappy edits and hijacking and they're off the radar.† Encyclopædius 14:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Prohibited characters in user name

I was prohibited from generating User talk:𝐼𝐿𝒾𝓀𝑒𝒯𝑜𝐸𝒹𝒾𝓉0 because of prohibited characters. Error message was: ""User talk page modification: Failed to save edit: The title "User talk:𝐼𝐿𝒾𝓀𝑒𝒯𝑜𝐸𝒹𝒾𝓉0" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: " .*[^\0-\x{FFFF}].* <casesensitive> # Very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles"

It obviously doesn't make sense to permit characters in the creation of user names which aren't allowed in page names. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem with that is that we control page names locally on the English Wikipedia but user names are global across all Wikimedia projects. Either a discussion needs to take place on meta to restrict user names (where I'm sure you would come across the objection that there may be a language/script where such characters are valid) or we can decide to change the blacklist here to allow such pages, at least in User and User talk spaces. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Judging by the number of users blocked, or with no contributions, in this list, a reasonable heuristic would be to indef anyone with a similar user name. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

If an indef becomes the standard, that should probably be added to the username policy. I'm personally a fan of the taking off the blacklist for userspaces, then having some sort of notice about it anyway. -- a lad insane (channel two) 11:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this, but I believe edit filters can work for detecting usernames meeting certain patterns. Unsure what happens if you disallow creations, though. CC User:MusikAnimal, who wrote Special:AbuseFilter/1023 (by the way, should 1023 match "autocreateaccount"?). --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes edit filters can be made to disallow account creation matching any pattern. However you could argue this case is just a social problem, while Special:AbuseFilter/1023 is a workaround for a bug. Using an edit filter is an option but I probably would just update the username policy and block when these come up, as Johnuniq suggests. Other wikis may not agree and will permit these kinds of usernames.

I did change 1023 to use "contains" rather than "==", which should account for auto-account creation. Which reminds me, this should really be implemented at meta:Title blacklist rather than a local filter. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• In any case, @David Biddulph:, I've created the talk page, so you can post to it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Articles giving religious doctrine from primary sources

User:Oct13 has created several articles giving Catholic doctrine, entirely (or almost entirely) using primary Church sources. One such article Church Fathers and abortion, which was a POV fork of Catholic Church and abortion, went through AfD and was deleted 3 months ago. But there are others: Holy obedience, Miraculous plague cure of 1522, Christian Socioeconomics, Hell in Catholicism, and Catholic theodicy. The last two, created last Sunday, seem to be POV forks of Problem of Hell and Existence of God, respectively. How should this be handled? Bring each one individually to AfD? Or speedy AfD? Should User:Oct13 be asked to stop doing this? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. If the articles aren't up to standards, please delete them. I was actually thinking of making an article about Forgiveness in Christianity, but would it be allowed? Oct13 (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Oct13: To clarify, I'm referring to two issues. First, your sources in several of the articles you created are almost entirely primary sources that you combine to create an interpretation (please read WP:RSPRIMARY and WP:OR). Second, instead of, for example, expanding the coverage of Catholic views on Hell in the main article Problem of Hell and interacting with other editors on the talk page of that article, you created a separate article on your own in which you synthesized the official statements of the Church without any perspective from secondary sources (which could be by Catholics or non-Catholics). There could possibly be good reasons to create a separate article titled "Hell in Catholicism" if there is enough discussion and debate in secondary sources and if an adequate treatment of the topic in the main article Problem of Hell would be unwieldy. But my point is that a separate article needs to be compliant with policies regarding excessive use of primary sources, original research, and POV forks. Note that the deletion process WP:AFD normally takes at least 7 days and involves an investment of time by many editors. It's not a good idea to keep creating articles that are likely to be deleted, since that wastes people's time. NightHeron (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarity! My main issue with problem two is that I have trouble finding non-primary sources for Catholic teachings that aren't self-published Catholic sites.Oct13 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

In that case you don't have adequate sourcing for an article on the subject. For example, concerning Hell in Catholicism, before creating an article based on primary sources you might have looked at several Wikipedia articles that already have material on the subject, and then interacted with other editors on the talk-pages to perhaps add material to those sections. See Christian views on Hell#Roman Catholicism, Christian views on Hades#Roman Catholic, Problem of Hell#Christianity, and Hell#Christianity. The same applies to other topics on which you've written articles based on primary sources. NightHeron (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please also note that those article sections cite secondary sources. Since religious studies is a large field of scholarship, it should be possible to find secondary sources for any important notion in the history of theology (Hell, existence of God, forgiveness, etc.). NightHeron (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I removed a large addition [30] by Oct13 from The Bible and violence with similar problems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this where we have the content dispute? Where is the discussion centralized? Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. This is a procedural question about how best to deal with a good-faith editor's repeated creation of new poorly sourced articles. NightHeron (talk) 11:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd argue that where sourcing Catholic doctrine is the intent, primary sources would be just fine. After all, official Catholic sources tend to know how Catholicism works. But of course other sources would be quite the good idea, to keep things balanced - for Catholic sources of course tend to be biased towards Catholicism (I know, shocker). -- a lad insane (channel two) 18:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Miraculous plague cure of 1522

The article Miraculous plague cure of 1522 has been nominated for deletion here. NightHeron (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for close review

Back in February, I closed an RfC at Talk:Ronald Reagan. In my close, I found rough consensus to include a concise mention of some remarks, but suggested further discussion regarding the precise wording. Earlier today, Springee opened another RfC asking the same question of whether or not the remarks ought to be included. After I left a comment indicating that I consider their formulation of the RfC to be inconsistent with my prior close, they replied raising several objections to the close. Could an admin look over my close from February, decide whether or not it is valid, and then help organize the follow-up discussion that is starting to take place? Thanks, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to note that I and another editor both found the previous closing to be problematic. First, the non-admin closing conclusion of "rough consensus" was questionable based on numbers. Sdkb said it came down to numbers and they felt it was 10:5 in favor. As a personal rule of thumb I feel consensus by numbers is anything over 2/3rds so at best they are borderline. However, there were 19 !votes; 9 yes, 5 no, 5 were "wait". That means only 47% of the !votes were yes. More importantly, the closing editor's neutrality on the matter suggests a strong POV for inclusion. I will repeat that I don't think their POV is inherently problematic but upon closing the RfC the Sdkb became involved with other aspects of the Reagan biography page in a way that suggested a clear POV on what sort of material should be in the article. They initiated a RfC here [[31]] . After several months no editors had actually acted on the closed RfC. Sdkb pinned the RfC so it wouldn't be archived[[32]] and solicited other editors to make the changes they felt the RfC dictated[[33]]. Based on the evidence that the closing was not handled in a neutral fashion and the mathematically questionable determination of consensus I considered challenging the original closing. However, since no editors had decided to act upon the RfC it seemed a moot issue. Now that it is 9 months later and a number of editor's replies were "wait" I see no issue with opening a new RfC that can be closed by an uninvolved editor. Springee (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I have not expressed any opinion about the inclusion of the remarks, and I do not think it would be my role as closer to do so. I invited two editors I noticed working on the article a month or so after the close (I don't know the political tendencies of either) to participate in the follow-up discussion about the wording since that discussion wasn't really happening; that is different than "solicited other editors to make the changes they felt the RfC dictated". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I looked into this a bit more as I had always assumed this was a formal RfC. It never was. Rather it was an informal survey that simply died out. That might explain why nothing happened between the end of discussions in October 2019 and the Sdkb's "closing" in February 2020. Springee (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think it was brave of you to decide to close that, and I think it was very brave indeed to close it as "consensus to include". I would most certainly have called that discussion a "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  I presume you are using the word "brave" in the Sir Humphrey sense. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, Minister. ——Serial ^# 09:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  Positively courageous, Minister.—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Request for easy, non-controversial closure of informal discussion

By an admin or experienced editor here. Although only an informal discussion, it's been open about a week and the consensus is pretty clear. If you could then action your decision too. Thanks in advance! ☕🍟🍰 ——Serial ^# 09:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done, with assistance from Atlantic306. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanction warning on the talk page of new editors should be considered as WP:BITE

If a new editor, who did not receive any warning for disruptive behaviour, personal attacks, edit warring, adding contentious unsourced content and vandalism, then giving them Discretionary sanctions alert on first day is biting the new editor.

This should not be done on first day. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zubisko&oldid=951918392

The editor has not edited since then.

It's like RegentsPark identifying a potential opponent and scaring them off.

User:Slatersteven and User:SerChevalerie interacted with the editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.247.116 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. This is a no-fault alert that aims at informing users of the discretionary sanctions regime. El_C 06:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

^^^Thus spake El_C: arguably, too, alerts are even more important for new users as, while an established editor might be assumed to not need reminding of the restrictions (yet still is), a new editor will have no idea. By not advising them of the sanctions in place, in fact, you're making it more likely that they'll be breached. Which results, possibly, in an even less friendly welcome for the new editor. ——Serial ^# 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How are we defining "new" exactly? I suggest 2–3 years. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 07:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggest 6 years, 7 months and 25 days... at least. ——Serial ^# 07:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

↑What they said. It's a lot better to issue a neutral "you're dealing with a topic where the usual rules don't apply, if you're not confident that you understand all the rules around NPOV, sourcing, and inter-editor interaction, we suggest you start off in a less contentious area" warning from the outset. The alternative is that someone in good faith tries to add something they read on the internet about homeopathy/climate change/gun control, or thinks in good faith that they're improving Wikipedia by adding/removing an infobox on every page, and promptly gets themselves blocked. I do agree that the wording of the templates is incomprehensible and intimidating, but thus far nobody has come up with an alternative; that big gobbet of Bradspeak is unfortunately necessary if we're to convey precisely what "discretionary sanctions" does and doesn't mean. ‑ Iridescent 08:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's less bitey than the alternative, which is a rapid move to blocking. Guy (help!) 09:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Levivich Don't go for the heading only. The editor in question was one day account only. What harm would happen if the sanction alert is given after one week of non-disruptive editing? What did I say? Don't warn them ever? Warning should be given if they show signs of disruptive editing at the beginning. You gave them welcome message, then even before they have finished reading the welcome message properly, you give them sanction alert. Within one second he will read the links mentioned in welcome message? What is he going to read first? Discretionary sanction alert or welcome message? Welcome message given at 16:04, sanction alert given at 16:05. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zubisko&action=history Can't you people have some patience? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.218.253 (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

With edits that are likely to blow up into a war? No. Guy (help!) 13:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I often DS template new editors. But, I always preface with a welcome if one doesn’t exist. As the welcome says their contributions are welcome and we hope they stay, it further softens the warning. Experienced editors are regularly sanctioned on DS articles. If they run into difficulties; new editors need some sort of heads-up that they’ve jumped into the deep end. O3000 (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The very first thing the box says is "This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." It absolutely, positively identifies itself as not a scolding. It's an alert to someone who's entered a particularly fraught topic, that's all. It's like worrying that someone is going to be scared off of driving at all by a "one-way" sign at the beginning of the one-way street, and asking what harm could come from placing it where it won't be visible until a driver has already covered the first 100 meters of the one-way section the wrong way. Largoplazo (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• The notification is neutrally worded and contains information that any editor, new or old, wading into the topic should be aware of and I don't see this as a problem. In particular, it would be wrong not to let someone wading into that particular controversial article that their edits will receive extra scrutiny. I'm sorry that the editor chose to not return but it doesn't follow that they should have been kept in the dark about the sanctions. Technically, it is not correct that they dropped out after the warning because they appear to have made two edits before the warning (and the welcome!) and two edits after.--regentspark (comment) 14:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  Assuming that you're talking about User:Zubisko I think you've misread the edit history. There were 3 edits before the alert, and 1 after. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're right. I guess I misread the time. Probably not important anyway since it is likely that they either saw the notice after their last edit or have never actually seen it.--regentspark (comment) 13:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's bitey in that it's a huge warning with incomprehensible text. Only someone who is already familiar with how Wikipedia works can even figure out what it's warning you about. I want to point out that the linked page WP:ACDS is completely unintelligible to a newbie, and that both of the terms "discretionary" and "sanction" just seem like arcane legalese. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I strongly disagree. It's not a warning. It's explicitly says it's not a warning. It's unfortunate that some people interpret it that way, but there's no real way we can avoid that. So the idea we should wait for misbehaviour goes completely against the purposes of alerts which is not to warn but to alert. This doesn't mean we should give alerts for every editor who makes one edit, IMO this generally isn't necessary although it will also depend on the topic. But you should guide yourself mostly by "is this editor editing enough in the area that they probably need to know?"

Which gets into my next point, new or old, editors need to take care when editing DS areas. In fact, DS areas tend to have admins more sensitive to problems even without using the DS process. In other words, behaviour which may earn at worst, strong rebuke may earn a block if it's happening in a DS area even if it's not through the DS process. It's good for editors to know quickly that they need to take special care, consider carefully what they are doing, listen, read our policies and guidelines, seek advice and be far less bold then we normally encourage editors to be.

Also, in some areas we get a lot of SPAs, or worse socks. While there are measures which could be put in place for specific articles e.g. long term ECP or even long term semi protection to reduce problems, these can be controversial themselves and they can't be applied to all articles. To give one specific example, consider Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:777 persona 777 and Talk:Christopher Langan#Intelligent design. While okay, ECP could probably be applied to the article, I don't think it would be a good idea to do it to the talk page. But there are a lot of SPAs who keep popping up. Often these don't last very long. Giving them alerts quickly ensures that they are aware they need to take special care, and also that if necessary, they can be restricted quickly. AFAIK that hasn't even happened yet (there have been some blocks, but not under DS). Note that while me and others have alerted some of the editors, others haven't been alerted yet have disappeared, so I don't think there is even compelling evidence that they are being scared off. Frankly, in this particular case, I'm not sure if it's even harmful to scare off an editor who seems to only be here to push for or against the theories of some random person with a high IQ. To be clear, if these editors would be welcome to branch out into other areas, but most of them have only done a small amount in other areas, and even there it's often highly related.

Note that as I've said before, personally I greatly prefer it when editors alert someone who is on their "side" (for lack of a better word) because as I said, we can't stop people misinterpreting it as a warning so it's better if it's someone who may come across as "look I agree with you, but you need to take care when editing this area". However for a new editor it may not be so obvious anyway, plus I'd still prefer someone to alert. So provided editors are consistent in when they alert, I don't see any harm.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• I also disagree strongly. (1) As noted above, the alert notification is neutrally worded. (2) Not allowing newbies to be alerted, while continuing to alert other editors, puts the newbies in a unwarranted protected class. (3) Further, if the newbie has been misbehaving ina DS area, and continues to misbehave, admins would not be able to impose DS sanctions on them because they had not been alerted.
  In my opinion, the proposal is ridiculous on its face. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
• Let's face it: many articles under discretionary sanctions are haunted by WP:SOCKS. A sock will pretend to quit because an editor threatened him/her with discretionary sanctions, but in fact it is a circus acts merely done as trolling. Everyone who has access to a botnet could create lots of usernames in order to accuse an established editor of WP:BITE and harassment. If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick. Yup, botnet access is for sale on the dark web. Being honest means that the rules of the game are spelled out in advance. I do not see how hiding the knowledge of those rules from newbies would help them. E.g. a creationist POV-pusher, who only comes to Wikipedia in order to spew out creationist memes, will pretend that he/she did not know that that's against policies and guidelines. Someone has to tell them as it is: not in an offensive way, but in a clear and honest way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Whether they support or oppose, but let other participants in this thread see this comment by Tgeorgescu, "If one knows when an editor is online and which articles he/she edits, it is very easy to pull out this trick." There are many editors who can give discretionary sanction alert. User:Tgeorgescu is saying that the new user was able to control who will post welcome message and discretionary snaction alert on his talk page. Socks can create new accounts, but you are saying that the editor wanted to trap RegentsPark, by editing when he was online. This is like you belive in fortune teller, soothsayer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.110.228.164 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I am agnostic about whether it was the case for RegentsPark, but, yes, it would be easy for socks to game the system if such restriction upon placing notifications of discretionary sanctions would be enforced. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Tgeorgescu I don't support full restriction. I am suggesting that the new editor should show at least one trait of disruptive editing. If you are not happy with that, then give some time(more than one second) to the new editor to read the welcome message properly and then give sanction alert. 42.110.228.164 (talk) 04:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I give them to new editors who make good edits as well. I try to be impartial and prefer not to even know the content of their edits, although sometimes it's blazingly obvious. I also think that it would be in a sense unfair not to alert people asap, it might help them avoid ever making bad edits and perhaps gaining a bad reputation. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreeing with Doug Weller. Why do people assume that a warning message is some kind of punishment or dunning? It is just a warning, like not to drive over the speed limit in a construction zone or use a hair dryer in a bathtub. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

Add a Twinkle notification to alert new users that they have stepped into a controversial area along the lines of:

Hello. I notice that you have edited $ARTICLE, which is in a controversial topic area on Wikipedia. As a new editor, it is probably wisest to discuss any changes on the article's Talk page prior to making them. There are special restrictions around many such articles, and this can lead to a frustrating and intimidating experience for newcomers. Feel free to ask for help at the tea house if you need guidance on how to edit this topic.

How would that be? Guy (help!) 11:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good proposal Guy; not at all bitey but doesn't dance around the point, would take the sting out of any DS notice, and offers a friendly place to get help ~ if nothing else on all the acronyms which must surely puzzle the new user; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Integrating Patient-centered Outcomes Research into Wikipedia

Hiya pals,

ProcrasinatingReader dropped this in front of me after noticing Paolocmartin (talk · contribs)'s confusing and slightly messy contribs in the RC feed, apparently in assocation to the linked project.

I've dropped a note on the talkpage of JenOttawa (talk · contribs), who appears be associated with the project's organisation and also seems to have a clue.

No admin-y action required from anyone yet: I just wanted to put this on your radar because I expect Paulocmartin might end up being blocked, and this provides a little bit of context that's not immedately obvious from the first page of their contributions.

On a more general note, we've really gotta do something about the intersection of academia / education and Wikipedia. Although this isn't necessarily one of those cases, I keep seeing very low quality content from WikiEd participants - it would suggest we're not communicating well enogh, or providing enough resources. Perhaps this is something that the WMF should be spending money on.

Cheers,

-- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

JenOttawa is handling - cheers all. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 22:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems mostly cleared up. Thanks for looking into it Allie!

An admin may wish to do a final clean-up by deleting/moving pages like Wikipedia:Welcome/Research and Wikipedia:Welcome/About etc as appropriate. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bot to add missing protection templates, including fully-protected articles

See the BRFA at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MusikBot II 4. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No Great Shaker vandalism

On Churchill war ministry No Great Shaker made edits that deleted the entire ministerial section of the article. I re-added the ministerial table that the editor had deleted, for no apparent reason, however I then saw that the reason they have for deleting it was ‘moving horrendous and unnecessary list’ meaning they deleted it because they didn’t like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churchill_war_ministry&diff=927805078&oldid=927796948, therefore showing that he deleted a huge chunk of vital information for no reason and with no consensus. The table was deleted in November 2019 and NGS said he was going to redo it but as of June 2020 he had not done. When I re added the deleted info, No great shaker then attempted to delete the info I had readded but was fortunately stopped by another editor called GraemeLeggett who got involved and stopped his vandalism. No great shaker had now used personal attacks, such as blocked user, when I have tried to stop him from reverting the information again, and has now changed the article again so it no longer matches the similar ones at List of British governments. If you look at the articles about ministries, eg National Government (1935-1937) or Asquith coalition ministry you will see that the layout is: Office, name, date took office etc yet no great shaker has tried to change the article for no reason and is vandalising it, by changing the format and by deleting the table altogether. Please stop him. SallyWho (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AIV

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• SallyWho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Churchill war ministry: actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Suspected block evasion, perhaps the User:HarveyCarter syndrome again as at Winston Churchill recently. Personal attacks and removal of content. Can take this to WP:AN if you prefer. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• No Great Shaker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – On Churchill war ministry made edits that deleted the entire section of the article. I re-added the ministerial table that the editor had deleted, for no apparent reason, however I then saw that the reason they have for deleting it was ‘moving horrendous and unnecessary list’ meaning they deleted it because they didn’t like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Churchill_war_ministry&diff=927805078&oldid=927796948, therefore showing that he deleted a huge chunk of vital information for no reason and with no consensus. No great shaker then attempted to delete the info I had readded but was fortunately stopped by another editor called @GraemeLeggett who got involved and stopped his vandalism. No great shaker had now used personal attacks, such as blocked user, when I have tried to stop him from reverting the information again, and has now changed the article again so it no longer matches the similar ones at List of British governments. If you look at the articles about ministries, eg National Government (1935-1937) or Asquith coalition ministry you will see that the layout is: Office, name, date took office etc yet no great shaker has tried to change the article for no reason and is vandalising it. Please stop him. SallyWho (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• I fully protected the article for three days. Both of you, SallyWho and No Great Shaker, need to carefully read WP:VANDALISM, followed by WP:NPA, to realized that you are engaged into a content dispute, and there is no vandalism involved. If you continue calling each other vandals, blocks can follow pretty quickly. Please return to the talk page of the article and settle your dispute there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  Though SallyWho will likely be the first one, given that they have no positive contribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• As the named third party in all this, I'd better say something. From my vantage point both sides are using "vandalism" when actually it's a content dispute. The Churchill war ministry page had since 2013 and until a while back had the same section ("List of Ministers") as other ministries from 1707 to 2007 - a list of the positions and the ministers who filled them. In November 2019 the list of ministers was removed by No Great Shaker as an "unnecessary list" and ended up in Draft space as it was uncited. SallyWho it to the Churchill war ministry article yesterday (7 June) , No Great Shaker removed it again on the grounds of still unsourced, and SallyWho put it back shortly after. As I thought it belonged in the article, I decided to add to add some cites as that was the reason for previous removals. Since then No Great Shaker has made corrections and additions to the table. No Great Shaker then edited the table to remove any Ministers already covered in the preceding section which lists the members of the cabinet in the ministry , renaming the disputed section "Ministers outside the War Cabinet". SallyWho reverted that change and after that it's a back and forth with No Great Shaker calling SallyWho's reverts "troll" and SallyWho calling No Great Shaker's reverts "vandalism". GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ymblanter, I'll accept your decision on this but I think I would like you to adjudicate at the article talk page. I'll go there now and explain how I have been trying to improve the article. The account by GraemeLeggett above is a fair summary of what has happened. I may have overstepped the mark by suggesting that SallyWho is a probable block evader but it seems very odd to me that someone with a mere handful of edits should be so passionate about how another editor is trying to improve an article that has not, lets face it, been in very good shape. I cannot see how such an extreme reaction can suggest anything other than a vested interest in the article through past involvement. That's my opinion. Anyway, I'll say no more about that and will go to the article talk page to discuss the state of the article and how it can be improved. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• Hmmm. SallyWho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a "brand new user" whose early edits Right Great Wrongs committed in 2019. Am I the only one who thinks that's a bit sus? Guy (help!) 08:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• Just to note that No Great Shaker added a retirement template on their talk page and accused me in driving them out of Wikipedia. Sorry, I find this accusation completely out of place and can not accept it. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I figure you mean this conversation. Apparently they think you protected the WRONGVERSION and blasted you for it. Seems to me like you fulfilled your volunteer duties as an admin and paid the price. Situation normal. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Now this one seems to have been resolved: SallyWh blocked as a sock, No Great Shaker removed the retirement template and apologized to me, and I unprotected the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin

Should the article for Derek Chauvin be shown while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Chauvin is ongoing? Please {{ping}} me when you reply. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Jax 0677: I kept it hidden out of an abundance of caution (since some in the DRV raised BLP issues), but I have no opinion on the matter. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• @Jax 0677: I'm the one that suggested that it not be, but that we have a link to to a version of it in the AfD. It's unusual but not unreasonable. DRV often has discussions of material that has been "temp-undeleted" where people can look at the history. I don't think it should be SOP, but I think it's a good compromise (have the discussion but don't have the article until we decide to). Hobit (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
• User:Jax 0677: Yes, keep it visible unless there are really serious content problems with it. It should be unprotected too. There's really not much we can write that can damage the guy compared to the beatings (I don't know what other word to use) he's taking in the general media. So I wouldn't freak out about it. I looked at the last substantial version in the revision history and it's pretty tame, all the same stuff that's been everywhere in the news, all well cited, and missing some updates.[34] A drastic step like hiding the content is sometimes warranted when there's agenda pushing or scandalizing going on, or if the person doesn't otherwise have much notoriety. This isn't one of those times. The article content is quite mainstream and the writing is staid. That said, I'm always in favor of {{noindex}}ing articles about living people. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hadn't seen this, but FWIW I declined a G4 request at Talk:Derek Chauvin earlier today. I'd consider this section done with, but YMMV. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hidden? Everyone who turned on a newscast in the past two weeks knows who this is.--Hippeus (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Joe Lewis talk page

Not sure, but isn't a post like this [35]? some kind of policy breach? Govvy (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverted; user warned. DrKay (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh. I indef blocked. I can undo this if i stepped on toes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Haz revdelled as well. Guy (help!) 22:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

k, I thought a post like that was suppose to be striked, cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Govvy, it contains contact details. Guy (help!) 08:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: If the edit you revdel'ed is the same as their others, then they have 6 other posts to revdel. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Bison X, done. Guy (help!) 08:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

heh, didn't realise there was six other posts, bit strange to post that on wikipedia when there are dark web noticeboards for that! Clearly it was amateur day for that editor! Govvy (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Phew, I thought this was about me for a second .... User:Joel B. Lewis, who usually signs as JBL (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

CGDNSAA update/lots of sock puppets to block

Good news! The vids were just restored to a playlist I can access, which means my vandalism is actually done. What's more, here is a big long list of socks you can block now since I won't be needing them, in numerical order (the number before each is not part of the name, just my way of organizing it in a Google Doc which was too much trouble to remove for the copy and paste, but the same number at the end of each username is):

long list of socks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
136. Barefoot136 137. Sandals137 138. FlipFlops138 139. FeetInTheWater139 140. ToesInTheSand140 141. Hannah141 142. Emma142 143. Kelsey143 144. Adele144 145. Rebecca145 146. Evan146 147. Sparkles147 148. Liam148 149. Luke149 150. Dorothy150 151. CallMeWhatYouWant151 152. IDontCare152 153. HeartThrowerOuter153 154. RealLifeGirl154 155. Fellwood155 156. Cinderella156 157. Aurora157 158. Mulan158 159. Jasmine159 160. Ariel160 161. Rapunzel161 162. Tiana162 163. Moana163 164. Anna164 165. Merida165 166. Elsa166 167. Alice167 168. Pikachu168 169. Eevee169 170. Piplup170 171. Totoro171 172. Mario172 173. Zelda173 174. Luigi174 175. Sonic175 176. January176 177. February177 178. March178 179. April179 180. July180 181. May181 182. June182 183. August183 184. September184 185. October185 186. November186 187. December187 188. Pancakes188 189. Sushi189 190. Pizza190 191. FaceMask191 192. HandSanitizer192 193. Lysol193 194. SixFeet194 195. OnlineMeeting195 196. NiceTry196 197. NoLuck197 198. ComingBack198 199. BetterThanBefore199 200. Alta200 201. OneWay201 202. OrAnother202 203. TheTruth203 204. IsComing204 205. Back205 206. Nada206 207. Nothing207 208. Zip208 209. Zilch209 210. Bupkis210 211. Sierra211 212. Appalachian212 213. Rocky213 214. Fuji214 215. Everest215 216. Car216 217. Bus217 218. Train218 219. Boat219 220. Plane220 221. Essential221 222. Service222 223. Information223 224. Facts224 225. Education225 226. Star226 227. Sun227 228. Moon228 229. Earth229 230. Cloud230 231. Up231 232. Down232 233. Left233 234. Right234 235. Forward235 236. Backward236 237. North237 238. South238 239. East239 240. West240 241. C241 242. G242 243. SF243 244. HB244 245. W245 246. CountByTwos246 247. Always247 248. Double248 249. SpringForFall249 250. QuarterThousand250 251. HavingFun251 252. TyingShoe252 253. ClimbingTree253 254. ClosingDoor254 255. StillAlive255 256. PickUpSticks256 257. ImInHeaven257 258. ClosingGate258 259. DoingFine259 260. YoureMyHero260

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.194.11 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a hoax. After checking a dozen of the user names, none of these seem to be real user's name. CBS527^Talk 22:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the overall validity of this every one I've checked is a genuine account created over the last 3-4 weeks. Check the log for each user. ~ mazca ^talk 22:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

They are real accounts, but haven't made any edits. But I don't think blocking them would be necessary now that the vandal is off Wikipedia? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 22:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Better to just block them for long-term abuse. In case the vandal returns we don't want them to have an arsenal freely available. JavaHurricane 07:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Would like check of my actions in a possible NPA caution statement

This section has been moved to WP:ANI#Issues related to Talk:Ronald Reagan at suggestion of Beyond My Ken; leaving here for courtesy pointer. --Masem (t) 03:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The thread has been closed on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Help investigating T2 and T3 usage

I have for a long time been following CAT:T2 and CAT:T3 and have seen quite a lot of templates that would be more suitable to handled through TfD, redirection, moving the page to another namespace or speedily deleted under another criteria and am now considering a proposal to deprecate these criteria. In preparation for such a proposal I have been combing through the deletion log looking for templates deleted under these criteria during the last month and would like to see the content of these templates to help assessing how well the criteria are working. If some admin with a bit of spare time could help out by getting the last revision of each of the following pages and send them to me by email that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sent. —Cryptic 19:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I have started by creating a proposal for removing T2 at WT:CSD#RfC: Removing T2 ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Expiring user rights

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T255330

Hi. Some of you may have noticed that the log entries for adding user rights with expirations don't currently include the expiration (haven't for the last ~2 days) This is being investigate (phab:T255330). In the meantime, I started a manual log of the missing expirations at phab:P11488 - it would be really helpful if those adding user rights with expirations could put in their log entries how long the rights are for, so that if at some point a maintenance script is written to fix the old log entries the correct data is available. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Did SharabSalam call me a "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll"?

Hi, it seems to me that User:SharabSalam might have made a WP:PERSONAL attack against me: diff. Normally, I would not care but because SharabSalam has already been blocked 4 times (and unbclocked twice), and personal attacks were a contributing factor once, perhaps some action is advisable; I want to draw others' attention to it. Also it seems he was to "avoid articles related to slavery" per one of the unblocks but from time to time he edits them: diff (NB he self-reverted this edit, and his other edits related to slavery seem to be reverting obvious vandalism, though I did not delve deep into the history of any slavery-related page). Generally, it makes me think SharabSalam thinks little of the (un)blocks. As for me, even though I found his comment offensive, I do not know what action would be adequate, and if no action is deemed necessary, I am OK with it. (Also not sure if another/longer block would improve his behavior...) I suppose he makes useful contributions but I am just not sure other editors need to put up with this kind of behavior as Wikipedia is not only about content. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam has a tendency to attack-by-implication and then later apologize, so multiple violations are forgiven, until the next round, at least. I, for one, am getting a bit tired of seeing him as either the OP or the subject of multiple admin noticeboard reports. El_C 18:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you check what this report is about?...--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I did, and I reverted your attack, to boot [36]. Anyway, so not even an apology this time? I'm sorry but that does not inspire confidence. El_C 19:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiHannibal, where did I call you a Saudi troll? I said the source [37] says that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by pro-Saudi and Trump bots. Also, I was not banned from slavery articles. I said I will avoid them for 6 months which I did and that was last year.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like in the first dif they gave where you said oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use per [38]. How coincidental! PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And where does that says that he is a Saudi troll?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it was the "how coincidental" part. PackMecEng (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No that doesnt say that. I was saying that there is no source available that says Jamal was a "Muslim brotherhood sympathizer" except according to the report, from Saudi bots, and that it was a coincidental that it was the same edit that was added by WikiHannibal.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, that is not at all what you said, and I for one am rapidly running out of WP:AGF here. You compared WikiHannibal's edits to pro-Trump and pro-Saudi trolls, then adding "how coincidental" in a sarcastic manner in order to imply that WikiHannibal is, in fact, such a troll. creffett (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I wasnt implying that. I was implying that WikiHannibal got that from Saudi bots. Something is so innocent and I really didnt mean any personal attack against him.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, I have to agree with El_C here. Considering that you were just at AN/I a month ago for personal attacks, and you've gotten plenty of warnings regarding your interactions with other editors, I have a question: why shouldn't you get a temporary block for personal attacks? creffett (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, when did I make a personal attack here? I never made any personal attack. All I said is that "sympathizer of Muslim brotherhood" is used by Saudi trolls "[39]" You cant block me when I havent made any personal attack.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

How dumb do you think we are?--Jorm (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Is that a trick question? PackMecEng (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think "Saudi Barbaria" belongs on Saudi-related articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh yea. Now all the people who I had dispute with are going to gather in this thread. I have said that in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN thread. Their regime is barbaric and there is no freedom of press, therefore all of their sources should be considered state-owned sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not taking issue with you calling it a barbaric regime. I'm taking issue with you wanting to edit controversial articles related to that regime when you feel the need to make characterizations like that. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Saudi regime is a barbaric regime. It is not not just my feeling. Its the consensus of acadmic scholars who are expert on the subject.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Possible boomrange?: Can someone also look at the history page? WikiHannibal made a bold edit, got reverted, he reverted, and again. I thought Wikipedia is about consensus-building not editwarring. When I warned him, he said it is especially valualbe, coming from someone who has already been blocked 4 times. Clearly making fun of me because I got blocked in the past. This was before that discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  WikiHannibal, SharabSalam is correct here: that was an edit war, you should have gone to the talk page after being reverted rather than re-reverting twice. Please do not do that again. creffett (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:(perplexed frown) For someone who does not mean to make personal attacks, you certainly seem to make a lot of them. Perhaps you could better consider your remarks? Saudi ‘’Barbaria’’? You seem to have difficulties editing in a neutral manner about this subject. Perhaps things would be calmer with a TBAN on such a subject? --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 19:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Question @SharabSalam: Do you still think that "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" as you said here [40]? --Shrike (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, in I/P area? Yes.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I think that person that think "Israeli sites are mostly unreliable" and affirms it[41] shouldn't edit IMO about ARBPIA conflict as he can't edit in neutral way but I like to hear more opinions about this matter --Shrike (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Shrike, that’s probably better for WP:AE than here. Different discussions, imo. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

To me it seems its just one of symptoms of same problem.The user cannot neurally edit about political issues and contemporary conflicts --Shrike (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Note - This user got renamed, possibly courtesy vanishing. Interstellarity (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Congrats, everyone. What a bloody shame. starship.paint (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban from Saudi Arabia

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 think a topic ban from Saudi Arabia is in order. This has been ongoing for more than a year on multiple projects. See this diff from meta where he effectively accused Alaa and other non-Saudi editors from ar.wiki who he was in a dispute with of being agents of the Saudi government when several of the editors who he is discussing have known RL identities and they are most certainly not Saudi. I see his finding of pro-Saudi internet trolls around every corner also continues on en.wiki. Therefore, I'm proposing the following:

SharabSalam is topic banned from Saudi Arabia, broadly construed.

• Support as proposer. This has been going on in multiple projects for over a year. The English Wikipedia is not the place for a continued dislike of ar.wiki and conspiracy theories and personal attacks on editors for being Saudi-sympathizers and/or agents. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Tony - is this his first t-ban? I'm not seeing a time frame - maybe 3 or 6 mos if his first? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Atsme: It is not his first T-Ban. At the moment, SharabSalam is T-Banned from post-1978 Iranian politics as a result of this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  I have not called anyone a Saudi agent. Read my comment. I said there are Saudi agents in that Wikipedia. Which is possible since they have agents in Twitter who were spying on Americans [42].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  You're not helping. This is part of the trend above, you make broad statements with obvious implications. In that thread you'd accused باسم of intentionally undoing every edit you make after you called out people for supporting "Saudi [Barbaria"], the implication being he was one of them. He's also publicly identified as Lebanese, not Saudi. Another example: you made this reply denying accusing anyone, while saying there were agents on ar.wiki and that people only came after they were notified. The implication in clear.

  Anyway, that's all meta, not en.wiki, but it shows you have the habit of making ridiculous insinuations: neither Ala'a or باسم are Saudi, and both are well-respected cross-wiki. They're not trying to drive a Saudi agenda. While that's another project, it's relevant here because it shows that you see pro-Saudi editors on three Wikimedia projects, even when it's pretty obvious the people you are discussing don't have a bias towards the Saudis. They just don't hate them as much as you. You were welcome to edit Saudi topics on en.wiki so long as you followed our guidelines. It seems you can't follow our behavioural guidelines here, just like you couldn't follow the behavioural guidelines on other projects in this topic area. We have a tool to deal with that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  They just don't hate them as much as you. OMG, I hate Saudis?

  Can anyone stop this?? This admin has completely manipulated what I said. I have never said I hate Saudis. That's such an extremely offensive thing to say to me. I said that there are Saudi agents in Arabic Wikipedia. I never said someone is a Saudi agent. For the reverts, you can see here that I and other editors got reverted by باسم without any reason. Yes, literally no reason for the reverts. They dont say why they reverted you. Your manipulation of what I said is completely offensive to me. If you want to block me, block me but dont accuse me that I hate Saudis. I dont and I dont hate Saudis.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  Apologies. I was using standard English shorthand for: They just don't have as universally negative views on things involving Saudi Arabia as you do. No one is saying that the Saudi regime is the model of human rights. What we are saying is that you have a history on multiple Wikimedia projects of not being able to act within our behavioural norms on this subject area. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  I do have a negative view of the Saudi regime, not "on things involving Saudi Arabia". Most Yemenis do have a negative view of the Saudi regime. However, I have never made any disruptive, POV edit in Saudi Arabia-related articles. I have always remained neutral in these topics. I have said the word "Saudi Barbaria" once on Wikipedia, and I was talking in the reliable sources noticeboard about the Saudi regime press freedom. They kill journalists as we saw in the Jamal case. My point was that Saudi-based sources are as bad as Saudi-owned sources because of there is no freedom of press. And that was the whole point of what I said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reluctant support even though I suggested it. I can't see how anyone who calls Saudi Arabia Saudi Barbaria can approach the subject objectivvely. Tony makes some good points. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 20:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)'

  Note: I oppose an on Islam TBAN. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra

  I have literally used that word once on Wikipedia and it was in the context of their press freedom in WP:RSN and not in the article. Barbaric means cruel. The Saudi regime is a cruel regime in the context of their press freedom. And I was making a point, Saudi-based sources are not free even if they are not owned by the government, therefore, they are not reliable in some cases.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral on the proposed tban on Saudi Arabia, but strongly opposed to a much broader tban covering Islam-related articles, as is being proposed below. A ban on editing anything related to a major religion is a very strong action. If an editor had a tendency to remove content critical of the Catholic Church, claiming it to be poorly sourced, we would not rush to tban such an editor from all Catholicism-related articles. I've tangled with such editors, especially on matters relating to abortion, but I've always been able to rely on consensus of other editors on those content issues and have never believed that those Catholic editors needed to be banned. As a non-Catholic, I believe that Wikipedia should not take punitive action against those Catholic editors (unless an extreme case occurred); and as a non-Muslim, I also believe that Wikipedia should not ban from Islam-related articles an editor who on occasion has objected to what they perceive as anti-Islam content, even if their objections to it sometimes were not well-grounded. Religious tolerance and even-handedness are important here. NightHeron (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per TonyBallioni and El_C above for consistent POV editing and personal attacks. Also, per Debresser below, I believe we should stronger consider a broader topic ban covering Islamic subjects in general. YUEdits (talk) 02:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)​

  Note: YUEdits has made fewer than 500 contributions to Wikipedia, dating to 2017, and this is their first ever post to any administrator noticeboard. They've only edited 1 article talk page and 1 other noticeboard. Interesting, I would say. starship.paint (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I am in agreement that this topic ban is not as broad as we probably need here. I would be also fine with "topic ban from anything related to Muslims". Orientls (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I oppose an Islam TBAN. The argument below is that he removed anti-Muslim content sourced to unreliable sources. Are we really going to sanction an Arab editor for removing anti-Muslim speech in a way that doesn’t violate any policy or attack any editor? If I did that I’d be given a barnstar. I think SharabSalam sees Saudi spies around every corner and needs a sanction because of that, but being paranoid about the Saudi government and calling others Saudi trolls, etc. is what’s disruptive. Removing an anti-Muslim hate blog is laudatory. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • He makes hundreds of edits so that is not really surprising, but also see other edits mentioned in the section below. What one should also see is that the existing topic ban on him from Iranian politics (1978 - present) emerged on ANI and this subject involves Islamic politics. Now we are discussing the Saudi Arabia related editing issues which again involves a Islamic country. I don't see how country-specific bans are really going to work anymore, thus it is better to make a broader topic ban. Orientls (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I wouldn’t object to a broader Middle East topic ban, but I’d pretty strongly oppose an Islam one. Like I said, he accused a Lebanese CU of being a pro-Saudi POV pusher and basically said the only Arab steward was a Saudi spy for opposing a local dialect wiki (full disclosure: علاء is probably my closest friend on Wikimedia so I’m still angry about that.) Now he’s doing the same crap on en.wiki that he was doing on meta and ar.wiki: the thing is, removing religionofpeace and synthesis/original research of primary sources from religion articles is almost always a good thing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I have never accused anyone of being a Saudi spy. Also, I have being completely neutral while editing ME articles. I have expanded geographicall articles about Yemen.[43] I have always being helpful in that area. I dont think this is because of the meta wikimedia thing. I think this is because I supported a standard section header in AN/I. I have noticed that since then you started attacking me. It is also clear that you want to become a steward.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • You realize I’m trying to prevent you from being unjustly sanctioned for removing anti-Muslim hate speech, right? As for your attacks on me: I turn down people asking me to run for steward every year because it doesn’t interest me. The odds of my running for steward are approximately zero, and are also not relevant to this discussion. And no, I’m not mad about you supporting standardized section headers. I’ve admitted I’m not particularly happy with you over your attacks on Ala’a, and that’s a bias, but you’re doing the exact same thing on this project, and since I know the history on meta and ar.wiki that is relevant, and others don’t, I’m going to raise it. I have said that I think your actions on this project have become increasingly a net negative over time, and because I am active cross-wiki and am very familiar with ar.wiki and meta, I know your history on those projects, which is applicable here since you’ve shown the same behaviour on multiple projects, and it’s been disruptive on all of them. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

          WTF are you even talking about? I have never attacked Alaa. You have got to be kidding me. Are you instigating Arab users against me?. That issue happened between me and the whole Arabic Wikipedia system. I have been so nice with Alaa. See my talk page in Arabic Wikipedia!. I have only objected the way they revert edits, all of them. They don't write edit summaries. I don't think you know Arabic Wikipedia. I have never had any issue with you. It all started when I supported a proposal to have a standard AN/I. Before that you were so nice with me. Even in meta Wikimedia.[44] I have been blocked in Arabic Wikipedia because of the username only, nothing about my contributions. I wasn't able to speak English very well when I joined English Wikipedia but I just joined because every edit I make in Arabic Wikipedia is being reverted. Most articles in Arabic Wikipedia don't make any sense, because they are clearly translations and when someone tries to fix that he gets reverted. Months ago, someone emailed me telling me to make a complaint in meta Wikipedia and to provide evidence. I didn't want to do that but now I will, when I have time, make a complaint and provide tons of evidences of non-free Arabic Wikipedia. In any case, you dont seem to be neutral. You have said many mean things to me like saying that other editors dont hate Saudis like I do "They just don't hate them as much as you" and that I am "being paranoid about the Saudi government ". Do think saying someone has a mental health is not offensive? Do you think saying that I hate Saudis is not offensive?. I told you before, if you want to block me, block me, but dont say these mean stuff to me.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Unfortunately, the editor’s strong personal view about the country appears to be impairing their ability to cooperatively and civilly edit in the area. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral on Saudi Arabia TBAN per discussion with SlimVirgin below; oppose Middle East TBAN per comments by MJL below; oppose a ban on Islam or Muslim topics per my original rationale. 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Support Saudi Arabia TBAN per the problems here. Weak support for Middle East TBAN given the pattern with Iranian politics. Strong oppose to a ban on Islam or Muslim topics as way too broad. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC) edited 03:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from the subject of Saudi Arabia. Partly after reading this here, and partly after reading the recent discussion on SharabSalam's talk page with TonyBallioni, I have to conclude that SharabSalam does not appear to be open to considering how he is coming across or to listening when other people try to explain it. The clearest example is right here, in that "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" comment. Even if that wasn't intended as a personal attack likening an editor to a pro-Trump, pro-Saudi troll, it's undoubtedly how it comes across. And I see a steadfast refusal to even consider that. In fact, had I seen that comment before the discussion here commenced, I would have blocked for it. My fear is that SharabSalam is heading for an eventual exclusion from this project, which would be unfortunate, and I hope a topic ban here might act as a wake up call and prevent that happening. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as I said at the ANI thread back then, SharabSalam is emotionally invested in the topics they edit on: first Iranian politics, now Saudi Arabia? I have a gut feeling that we're going to end up looking at a t-ban from the entire Middle East. But, per WP:ROPE, this, for the time being. ——Serial ^# 17:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Saudi Arabia TBAN, alternatively support Middle East TBAN (or should that be MENA to make the WMF happy?), oppose Islam TBAN. Echoing SN54129 and Boing!, I'm not filled with confidence that even an ME topic ban will be enough of a wakeup call given that they didn't seem to get the message after the IRANPOL TBAN, but ROPE and all that. I also would like to express my disappointment that SharabSalam has been told by multiple editors how their "pro-Saudi trolls" line sounds and yet hasn't even retracted the comment. creffett (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  How to redact that comment when it is already removed. I didnt intent to call any editor Saudi troll. I said that the content that was added was promoted by Saudi bots according to reliable sources. If I knew that I would have been understood that way, I wouldnt have said it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The proposed ban and the ban from Middle East as per this comment [[45] --Shrike (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Can someone post examples of the problematic edits or comments about Saudi Arabia on enwiki? So far, the only one offered is "oh wait that's the same language that pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls use ... How coincidental!" in response to a proposed poorly sourced edit that arguably undermined Jamal Kashoggi, the Saudi dissident who was assassinated. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems that SharabSalam has retired. Looking briefly through his edits, it seems he's an Arab editor with excellent English who understands the sourcing policies, including a good understanding of OR/SYN and the misuse of primary sources. In case I'm wrong about that, or in case it's an incomplete picture, can someone please post some of his problematic edits or comments about Saudi Arabia? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @SlimVirgin: On its own I would agree with you. For me, the context I would want you to consider is that this seems to be continuation of the behavior that led to the ban from post-1978 Iranian politics. While those accusations were more direct than the incident you mention, the oblique accusation, Tony's diff from meta (among others), the Saudi Barbaria comment at RSN, and the Iran TBAN collectively make me think that the editor has issues assuming good faith or behaving civilly (i.e., not rude) in this topic area, and that what they learned from the post-1978 Iran TBAN was to make accusations by implication rather than directly. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Wugapodes, thanks for the links. I agree that his comments there were unacceptable. The Iran topic ban was placed on 26 April 2020, so the question for me is what he has done since then to trigger a second one. The meta diff is from 2019 and in any event needn't affect enwiki. The Barbaria RSN diff was in January and is arguably fair comment. So we're left with the "pro-Trump, pro-Saudi trolls" comment on 30 May. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Ah, I missed the date of the Iran TBAN. Given that timeline, I would agree a TBAN is not the ideal response. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
          • Thanks for taking another look. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't want to fully weigh in here, but I have to say that idea we would TBAN SharabSalam for that "Saudi Barbaria" comment would be pantently absurd. (1) The dude is not a native English language speaker and probably has no clue the deeper implications behind call a place barbaric. He didn't even know what "whiny *****" meant.^link (2) He lives in Yemen. You guys know there is an active civil war there, right? It's just a wee bit tense there.. (3) Saudi Arabia has done some pretty awful things, so let's not pretend that a user biased against them is all that surprising.
  If people want to support this TBAN for the reasons Tony outlined, that's one thing. To TBAN for that one single comment from five months ago, that's pretty absurd.
  I'd also completely oppose a ban on the broad topic of the Middle East. That's like TBANing an English person from the entire topic of Western Europe. That's greatly disproportional to anything I have seen be alleged SharabSalam to have done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  If people want to support this TBAN for the reasons Tony outlined, that's one thing. - I've read through Tony's link for meta.wiki and I have a different interpretation. I do not think SharabSalam was targeting Tony's acquaintances, I think it was a general comment. If you combine every allegation SharabSalam made as if they all referred to the same people, yes, it would look bad. But I do not think one is obliged to combine all the allegations. It is one way to look at it, but it is not the only way. starship.paint (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be honest, I thought along very similar lines. I just figured I must've been missing some context or something. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Given Saudi Arabia’s influence in the region, is it even feasible to devise a TBAN from Saudi Arabia but not from the Middle East? P-K3 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  The behavior here is very concerning because I don't believe people don't quite understand the implications of what they're saying, and what it could mean or the consequences it could bring to people who live in different countries from the US or UK, especially where religion and customs are held in the highest regard. Please measure your words carefully. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: Considering we have a general sanction regime in place for Iran.. well there you go. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• The behavior clearly justifies the proposed TBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per SarahSV and MJL. Furthermore, I have stated above, I do not believe the meta.wiki comment was targeted at anyone in particular (of that discussion). Let's also remember that this dispute started with the OP labeling Jamal Khashoggi as a Muslim Brotherhood "sympathizer". What we should be doing, if SharabSalam ever returns, is to have them clearly state the targets of their criticism every time. starship.paint (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Vanishing

• Note: User:Sotiale (not an admin) moved the user page and talk page of User:SharabSalam. I was able to undo the talk page move, but the user page, not so much. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Sotiale is a steward and global renamer. He was obviously doing it on request. You should revert.P-K3 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pawnkingthree: - I reverted already. starship.paint (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

My subsequent follow-up comment was lost in an edit conflict. While I realize this is a courtesy vanishing, it’s a highly irregular one, given the ongoing conversation, and that it was requested from a WMF steward. I’d prefer Sotiale justify why they did so. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Global renames are often requested in private. Sotiale does not need to "justify" anything. ST47 (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

ST47, for the record, I don’t have an issue with user vanishing. But as I understand it, these sorts of things are not to be done with a user’s conduct being discussed on a noticeboard. My issue here is with a WMF steward acting out of process. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Look, Sotiale is Korean and doesn’t really edit this project. He had no reason to know that this was in the middle of a sanctions discussion or that the user was already under sanctions. The simple solution is to reverse the vanishing, because you are correct, he isn’t entitled to one while under sanctions or being discussed at a noticeboard. It’s not big deal. These things happen on a global website. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me tell you something: English Wikipedia is not the center of Wikimedia-sphere and we (S and GRNs) do not need to check for every project/every contribs every time to check stuff before acting on something. Vanish runs on honor systems: we assume good faith and act on bad faiths if found. — regards, Revi 03:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I would expect a Steward to be familiar with policy and understanding that they may not be the best individual to process certain items at times. We have a plethora of renamers, especially ones whose home wiki is enwiki. There is hardly ever an instance where renames need to be processed immediately. I will be reversing the rename soon, unless anyone can think of a reason not to. Nihlus 03:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think if you reverse the rename that would be good and would also be the end of the discussion on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I know this is a tangent, but I'm confused; how is User:Nihlus going to undo the rename? They aren't a steward or a global renamer. Tony's reply makes me think they can, and I'm missing something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to reverse his vanishing? He wants to leave. Let him go. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it is against global policy to rename someone who is embroiled in controversy and who may be using the rename to obfuscate their conduct. Floquenbeam, I am a global renamer and have been for sometime now. Anyway, the rename has been reversed. Nihlus 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, let us not only make English Wikipedia more myopic and parochial, but let's do it in the most tortuous way possible. Forgive me for actually reading WP:VANISH, but there it says: "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently. As such, it might not be extended to users who have been disruptive, who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned." That unless clause (combined with the 'might not' in the following sentence) tells me this is something you chose to do. That's fine. I am entitled to think you're a bad person for doing so. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

He isn't "embroiled in controversy". WP:VANISH is poorly written, but my understanding is: don't do this to wriggle out of trouble temporarily; you do have to intend to leave. SarahSV ^(talk) 03:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The reason for the norm to be declining a vanishing in the middle of a sanctions discussion is that people who vanish in the middle of sanctions discussions usually aren't actually vanishing. They're usually trying to set up for an invalid clean start and will be back. Because of that, the vanishing policy both locally and on meta is traditionally read similar to the en.wiki WP:CLEANSTART policy since despite the wording saying vanishing is not a clean start, they tend to be linked in practice.

It keeps things cleaner if you wait until after it is over, and easier to figure out who is under sanctions and who isn't if they do come back in another incarnation. Basically, I do agree with reversing this, but I think we could have better explained the reasoning behind it besides global policy says so. I think there's a good reason for that norm, but its not intuitive if you don't work in the area.

Basically, my understanding of VANISH is that if you wouldn't otherwise be eligible to clean start, you shouldn't be vanished. There is of course wiggle room and grey areas, but I don't think they really apply here since it isn't a real name account or one with privacy concerns. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Addendum: m:Global rename policy is a bit clearer on this saying that in seeking a rename The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct. which is another reason turning down requests during sanctions discussions has become more of a normal way of handling it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, so renaming and vanishing are now the same procedure? One sort of anticipates further contribution from the editor. One does not, no? Dumuzid (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Vanishing is done using the rename function, so normally the global rename policy is applied. Like I said, there's also a sometimes spoken sometimes unspoken assumption that rage quits happen, and are more likely to happen when someone is under stress of being discussed at a noticeboard. Eventually a lot of the people who try to vanish when there's controversy come back. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Nihlus, where does meta:Global rename policy say anything that meant this vanishing had to be reversed? SarahSV ^(talk) 03:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict × 5) Dumuzid, there is quite a bit in WP:VANISH as well as m:Global rename policy that explains what renaming is not to be used for. The main takeaway though is that the user is a user in good standing and that renaming ... might not be extended to users ... who leave when they lose the trust of the community, or when they are blocked or banned. So yes, this is something that I, in agreement with the original renamer and Tony, chose to do in accordance with policy. I disagree with your need to personally attack me and request that you remove it. Thank you.

  SlimVirgin, the fact that a topic ban is being discussed on AN means a rename would be under controversial circumstances. And this is something that we avoid for obvious reasons, as mentioned in my previous comment. I left more comments on the user's talk page prior to renaming. There is nothing that said it had to be reversed. The original renamer said it was okay to reverse, and two global renamers agreed that it should be reversed. The original request had no mention of privacy concerns, so there wasn't any need to look into it further. Nihlus 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, I am sure you are a wonderful person in your day-to-day life, and probably on Wikipedia as well. I have drawn a conclusion regarding your specific conduct here. Do what you want with that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, when this has closed, we should discuss at Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing how to avoid this kind of situation in future. The local guideline should apply. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, the local policies should and do apply in this situation. If, after this discussion, SharabSalam would like to vanish and is eligible, then I will be happy to process it for him at that time. Nihlus 05:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Nihlus, there isn't much point in arguing about it in this thread. According to my reading of WP:VANISH, he is eligible. According to yours, he is not. That means there is a problem with the way the guideline is written, and it would be good to resolve it. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Renamer note As a renamer, I can tell you that SharabSalam is probably "under a cloud" and probably should not have been vanished. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 03:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reversing the rename/vanishing, while defensible by policy, was a mistake. Nothing is gained by keeping someone here who wants to walk away. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Then you should change the policy at WP:VANISH, until then it was the correct decision. A bit of nuance would explain that this policy is not about keeping people but letting obviously malicious editors ineligible for courtesy vanishes so they can resume their behaviour with a new account. Requesting vaishing in the middle of a sanction discussion is basically running away from criticism and community sanctions, hence quite clearly VANISH does not apply. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, except that I don't believe we are dealing here with an "obviously malicious editor." Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm aware yes, but where do you draw the line on "malicious", that's the spirit of the policy and the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter. If there was no sanction discussion where proponents supported the sanction, it would be per policy but again, that's not the case here. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  the only way to enforce the spirit is by enforcing the letter What? WP:IAR and WP:5P5 seem to suggest that's not the case. This just sounds like wikilawyering for a reason to punish someone who wants to leave. Also, if anyone who argues too passionately and discourteously for a topic they care about is now "malicious" under your definition, you might want to go see our "malicious" community trustee that just got a TBAN for similar conduct. Wherever the grey line of bad faith editing is, we're clearly very far away from it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  It's not a grey line, it's a grey area - if we allowed a repeat evader to vanish would that be okay? What about an editor who has been blocked for a day? What about someone in the middle of an arbitration request where they are a party? If you wish to invoke WP:IAR, so be it, but presenting thousands of alternative cases and not applying policy as it's meant to be is your cross to bear (go for it, it makes no difference to me either way). Not once did I state that SharabShalam is malicious and I don't know why both of you would misconstrue it as so, I am simply stating the intent of why RTV is disallowed in some cases. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  QEDK, here's how I view it. Someone wants to vanish, fine, they get to vanish. As long as they're not some prolific vandal or something (and SharabSalam is not, regardless of whether any of us might agree or disagree with him) then let them go. Once. Whatever shit they may happen to be in at that point. "I choose to walk away" should always be an option.

  If they return with an attempted clean start, then they can declare that, and we can look at it case by case. Guy (help!) 20:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @QEDK: It's not that you said they were malicious, but you brought up a point about maliciousness in a case where it supposedly did not apply. If you don't believe Sharab is malicious, why do we need to argue about where the line is? Since Sharab was editing in good faith, if the spirit is avoiding harm from malicious users, then not following the letter better complies with the spirit. My point is and was that focusing on the specific letter of the policy isn't helpful. As Nil Einne explains below, it's not even clear that the wording you point to has particularly broad consensus.

  Despite the page name, I (and perhaps others) view this as a right not a courtesy. The meatball:RightToVanish essay was the basis for our early vanishing policy and--along with Barnstars and Assume Good Faith--the right to vanish represents one of the oldest parts of our community. SarahSV created our RTV policy page in 2007, copying it from meta. Meta's right to vanish was created in 2004 and was spun out from our first privacy policy where it was added by an IP in 2003. People change, communities change, and risks change. Unlike social media accounts or blogs, if we change our mind and want to abandon our connection to the content we've created, Wikipedians cannot simply delete our accounts or content (and people used to do that on wikis: c2:WikiMindWipe). As a matter of privacy and decency, we should afford good faith editors the right to renounce their connection to their contributions through vanishing should they choose to leave our project permanently. If we need to reverse the vanishing later so be it, but either way all the important stuff is kept. We gain nothing from a weak right to vanish but stand to lose a lot without a strong one. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm with NYB here. I agree this is all within the letter of policy, but I'm saddened that we couldn't just let him go as he apparently wishes. And no, this is someone who has problems with their interactions with others, but I really don't think there's any malicious intent. Oh well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I am very much of the view that the harder we make it for people to leave with dignity, the more we stoke resentment and invite further abuse. If someone wants to leave, let them. Honestly. This is not some vandal we need to keep track of long term abuse. I've had my run-ins with him but this just makes us look spiteful. Sorry, I know that's harsh, but - well, just let the guy leave. Guy (help!) 20:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  All of you do realize that you can leave anyway right, without executing a RTV? If someone wants to leave, all they need to do is scramble their password. RTV is just so you can be renamed into some gibberish and possibly have a clean start, edit history and talk pages are always preserved anyway, so the fact that a few more things are retained has literally no bearing on a clean start and is mostly extended as a courtesy to editors in good standing (in case of SharabSalam, that's unclear, since they were the subject of a sanction discussion at the time of requesting RTV). Hope that clarifies it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  @qedk: SharabSalam has had an active sanction against him since before this discussion started (linked above), so there is very little chance of him being an eligible for a clean start (without explicit invocation of WP:IAR or something).
  Regarding the RTV/leaving thing, I'd just let people say what they're going to say. If people want to express their positive opinion of an editor or opine that a certain and specific courtesy should've been shown to them on their way out, then I can't see that doing any harm. At the end of the day, the policy has still been followed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  But people can have strong attachments to their user names, especially if they have been used outside Wikipedia, and often even when they aren't. So even when an account name cannot be easily tied to a real name, demanding that we keep unnecessary connections seems, well unnecessary. Both WP:RTV makes it clear that editors who have engaged in that process cannot undergo a clean start. If they want to return, their vanishing is liable to be reversed or at least their connection to the old account will need to be clearly disclosed and will be considered in any request to return to editing. I think that's fair enough too. And as others have said, when the it's necessary to keep that connection so help us in tracking them e.g. for a known sock, sure it's fair enough that RTV is denied. But I agree with others that it's not clear why it was needed in this case. There seems to be no benefit to us, but there is potential harm to both us and the editor involved. Note that I have no real feelings about the editor either way. I just don't see any reason why we need to keep the unnecessary stuff when there is no apparent need to track them anymore and we already make it clear that if you later decide to return you will need to come back under you original identity so your return can be properly assessed. But until then, if you want to stay away, and you do stay away, then we're not going to keep unnecessary connections. The edit history, AN//I discussions etc will be preserved as they need to be and always will be. The other stuff especially the username in the editor history, we can remove. The most confusing thing to me about this is I'm fairly sure I've seen RTV afforded to editors who are under strong sanction e.g. an indef block, or I think even a community ban or arbcom ban afforded the RTV in the past. Also some where the vanishing does risk causing problems i.e. an editor with a known sock history. And indeed a read Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing/Archive 1 seems to agree with me. Have we gotten a lot stricter recently, or is it just that because this editor decided to RTV when they were under discussion and therefore additional scrutiny, even if it seemed clear that any outcome would be no worse than when we normally allow RTV, they were treated different? P.S. If you check out that page, User:Risker's comments back in 2016 [46] are similar to how I feel now. Nil Einne (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes, Nil Einne, and MJL: As I've explained before, it's just how WP:RTV is written, do I have a personal opinion? Not really - because as I said, it's not a big deal. People's attachments to their usernames are also not a big deal, if you wish to execute RTV then that attachment becomes irrelevant. It's equivalent to wanting it both ways, ensuring that things you do aren't tied to your username as well being able to wipe your history (to a limited extent). The way I see it is WP:RTV is a courtesy and if you feel that's not how it should be then you should propose changing it, what's not OK is justifying written policy with arbitrary notions. Should the RTV policy be more lenient? Maybe, whether the community feels that way should be debated in a RfC and not at an AN thread. I'm sure there have been cases where RTV has been done on a indeffed account because someone didn't read through WP:RTV or just straight-up invoked WP:IAR but that's never a suitable reason to subvert policy. What I do agree with is what Wugs' said here, As a matter of privacy and decency, we should afford good faith editors the right to renounce their connection to their contributions through vanishing should they choose to leave our project permanently. And I believe the real question lies in identifying "good" faith and whether sanctioned or under-a-cloud editors apply for the same. So, the real crux of the issue comes down to the letter of the policy and as it stands now, it's not something we can or should resolve unilaterally. --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  We're not resolving it unilaterally; we're having a discussion about it because it was dealt with unilaterally when the renaming was reversed. I struggle to find in the text of that policy such a strict interpretation as you seem to understand. As Sarah has discussed above, nothing in the text requires we deny vanishing to those "under a cloud" or even indefinitely blocked users. Consider: Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention, unless you really mean to leave permanently (emphasis added). From my understanding of what "unless" means, it seems plain that what I and others have said is squarely within the text. Similarly, it might not be extended to users...who leave when they lose the trust of the community... (emphasis added). From my understanding of what "might" means, it does not denote a requirement but rather a description of what could happen. The meta policy is arguably less restrictive. Saying that we need to propose a change is nonsense; we've advocated an interpretation that is squarely within the literal meaning of current policy text and given historical evidence for the spirit of the policy which led to the development of the current text. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  That's a deliberate misinterpretation to suit your viewpoint, you are saying because it was dealt with unilaterally by Nihlus whilst chipping away at the "might" of the guideline (it might not be extended to users...who leave when they lose the trust of the community...) as if to say what Nihlus did was not justified in the guidelines prescribed in WP:RTV, the fact is that as a global renamer they have the discretion to carry out or reverse renames and your misinterpretation of WP:RTV to be permissive more than it's supposed does not mean their actions were misaligned with policy. In cases where it's unclear and actions are probably in a grey area, the correct step is to go back to status quo and not go through with it anyway, which is what Nihlus did, then the discussions can resume on whether the action was correct or not. --qedk (t 愛 c) 06:58, 11 June 2020 (UTCl

  Agreed. Nihlus did the correct thing, according to policy, and there isn't much more to be said about it. It is probably time to move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• This hasn't been Wikipedia's finest hour. We've made a hot mess out of a relatively low-level problem.—S Marshall T/C 09:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• To be fair, there wouldn't have been any "mess" if the editor had simply waited for the discussion to be concluded and then made their request. It was their doing so in the middle of a discussion about possible sanctions which created the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Censoring

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

---

I just had a closer look at this editor, who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template, and found that on many occasions he has removed negative information about Islam on grounds that seem trumped up to me (excuse the pun). Claiming primary source, unreliable source or original research he removed large paragraphs in edits like [47][48][49][50][51][52][53]. Primary sources is not in itself a reason to remove information, and frankly these claims seem trumped up in order to allow this editor to remove information which he feels is compromising for Islam. By the way, please notice that I am not claiming to have researched the reliability of each and every source and the sourcing of each and every claim he has removed. I am however seeing the bigger picture here, and it looks very suspicious. Since this is a long-term problem, and one that is much harder to recognize than a personal attack, I don't know what should be done, although I for myself have reached the conclusion that this editor should be banned from all Islam-related articles or simply blocked, since the long-term effects of his edit pattern are very detrimental to the project. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You have not researched the reliability of these sources? Like did you see thereligionofpeace? Did you also see that these sources are all primary and all the content is original research?. You just reverted me without seeing whether what I said was wrong or not. For the template, you were editwarring and you got warned for editwarring. The admin at the editwarring noticeboard also warned you. As I said, all of those who I had dispute with are going to gather here lol.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, primary sources are not forbidden, and are actually often used in articles about religion. And no, I don't think that this content is all original research. And again, I am more concerned with the pattern that is emerging from these edits than with the fact that one of these edits was sourced to an advocacy group, which, by the way, is specifically not forbidden by the relevant policy. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

But original research is forbidden. You didnt actually look at any of what I said. You, as you said above, assumed that I removed that content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Thats interesting. Why did you assume that and not look at whether what I said was wrong or not?. You have provided many diffs and I have explained my edits in all of them. If you have a content dispute, we can discuss that in another place. You brought this here, why? You said I am removing content because I "feel is compromising for Islam." Could you provide any evidence? The diffs are all justified. Can you tell me where I was wrong in each of these diffs and why?. I would appreciate if you provided more insight to the problem that you are accusing me of.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And there is a diff to the Ghassanids, how is that relevant to Islam? Could you tell what is wrong with this edit!! that you added in the diffs??--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I think thereligionofpeace .com is a bogus website. I am not certain of that though, as I don't really want to load such a page to review it. I read about it second hand. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

And by the way, User:Koreangauteng is confirmed sockpuppet of a user who is known for pushing anti-Muslim view and adding original research as you can see the sockpuppet investigation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, at least one of those sites is an anti-muslim hate blog. I'd have made the same edits myself. Guy (help!) 23:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't have the time to check each statement and each source. Blogs are of course bad sources, regardless of their POVs, no doubt. It is the ease with which whole paragraphs with a certain type of general content are removed, that triggers my suspicion, and I think this should be looked into. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

All of what I removed was unreliable. You have not explained how any of what I removed should not have been removed. You are accusing me of "censoring" but you have provided no evidence. You said at the top and at the very beginning of your post "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template", is this the real problem? Is this why you came here. You were editwarring and you got warned by an Admin. You continued to editwar regardless. Clearly you are treating Wikipedia as a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking generally: I don’t see this as relevant to the discussion. Removing anti-Muslim hate blogs and synthesis/original research from religion articles is a good thing. Most religion articles here are filled with it, and an Arab editor removing it is no different than my gutting Catholic articles sourced to early 20th century Protestant polemics: obviously a good thing. If there are specific instances where the sourcing has actually been evaluated, raise it on the article talk page first. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, now he is edit warring about it.[54] Please notice that he removed primary sources and The Economist, which is in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources as a "generally reliable source". His edit summary was "Rv unreliable sources". This is unacceptable as 1. censoring 2. removal of sourced information without consensus 3. edit warring 4. using inaccurate/misleading edit summaries. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

You forget to mention he was also removing religionofpeace. I’d be much more likely to support a sanction against you for restoring an anti-Muslim hate blog than him for removing it. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Debresser, The Econimust source supports this only, Some Muslims, however, advocate for LGBT rights.
• This, however, is based on unreliable source(an anti-Muslim hate blog), In the Quran, abominations include idolatry, divination, gambling, and intoxicants; eating blood, dead meat, pig, or an offering made to a false god; homosexuality; and blasphemy. While the Quran does not specify any punishment for committing any abomination, some Hadiths specify the death penalty for committing homosexuality.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It is also unrelated to Abomination (Judaism)--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• The fact that you started your post with "who recently tagged my talkpage with a warning template" shows that it is the main reason you came here. It is also not recent, its two months ago, in April. You were editwarring, you got warned. You clearly think this is a battleground.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I simply think you are a problematic editor. Why 2 months would not be recent, and what you see wrong with an unjustified warning on my talkpage being the trigger to investigate your edits, I fail to understand. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

semi-protect Tsai Ing-wen

It's been chnging from Republic of China to Taiwan and Taiwan to Republic of China and........I think that can be disruptive editing is really disruptive.So i suggest we should semi-protect Tsai Ing-wen.history--Taichengwu (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Taichengqu: Requests for page protection are generally made at WP:RFPP. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Messed up the ping, @Taichengwu: ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks--Taichengwu (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Can administrators "semi-protect" the email function when faced with email harassment?

Recently, I and my students have become victims of some serious harassment through email (I've already informed a number of admins and WMF about it). Anyway, the solution to harassment on talk pages has been to semi-protect our userpages and elevate students to auto-confirm status, which I did through the Wikipedia:Event coordinator tool. But the solution to email harassment is a bit tougher. I did find that there is an option (WP:ENABLEEMAIL) to "Allow emails from brand-new users", which when disabled, requires autoconfirmed right to email a given user. It seems like a great solution to harassment by email (the person harassing us is creating a brand new account for each email, as the old one gets blocked by CU quickly after). However, that option is disabled by default. And while I could auto-confirm my students and admins did semi-protect their talk pages (thanks), right now I don't think either of those flags (or any flags at all?) would allow us to enable the function of 'Allow emails from brand-new users' for another account. And this is a gap in our anti-vandal/harassment toolkit, as while of course I can make a class announcement / video telling my students to enable this option to protect their accounts, some will miss it, and it may be days before they do so. As such, I think it may be worth discussing if admins and/or event coordinators shouldn't be granted the power to enable this option for other accounts, in cases of harassment by email. Through to make it a bit more complicated still, they should be able to do it on a global level through global preferences, since any smart vandal/harasser can simply shrug and send an email through Commons, wikibooks or Urdu Wikipedia instead. But the fact remains that right now we may be somewhat impotent when dealing with email harassment, but the tools to deal with this exist, just need to be activated and given to the admins. Another option would be to enable this feature by default for all projects, because how often does a brand new account needs to be emailed by another brand new account? But as with any global changes, the latter option is probably more trouble than it is worth it (and of course it probably would need to be discussed on meta not here), even through it wouldn't really affect anything or anyone of significance. Thoughts? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Go to Special:Globalpreferences and disable email everywhere, then enable it only for en.wp. Do you have a tutorial that says Step 1: create a Wikipedia account? Add Step 2: disable email as described. MER-C 12:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Site ban proposal: SashiRolls

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

---

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

SashiRolls was unblocked in November 2018 largely because the reason for his initial block was a dispute he was in with Sagecandor, a sockpuppet of Cirt. In this unblock, Sashi was warned That said, there is considerable skepticism of unblocking, even among some of the supporters, so SashiRolls should expect a lot of critical eyes looking at their post-unblock behavior

Since his unblock, Sashi does not appear to have heeded this warning. The following are the sanctions and blocks that were not reversed:

1. No personal comments restriction, May 2019
2. IBAN from Tryptofish, May 2019
3. 1 week block for "Personal attacks and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior", June 2019
4. 1 week block for "Uncollaborative editing, aspersions, harrassment", August 2019
5. GMO Topic Ban and warning that an indefinite block was likely if behaviour did not change, November 2019
6. American politics topic ban, February 2020
7. 2 week block for violating the above TBAN 15 times, February 2020
8. 1 week partial block from Edward Colston for edit warring, June 2020

This is in addition to the sanctions he still has in place from before his unblock, which can be found at WP:AELOG.

Since his partial block a few days ago, Sashi has been on a vendetta against El C that in my mind is equivalent to harassment. See the following diffs:

1. Reverting a perfectly calm explanation of actions by El C as "escalation"
2. Implication that El C has no job outside of Wikipedia, which is obviously problematic given the current pandemic
3. Further attacks on El C's time spent editing here
4. Removing El C's response to not treat him as a punching bag as a personal attack
5. Editing El C's response to him with the edit summary "remove personal attack. you are not above the law" after it had already been reverted
6. This book-length rant which includes the following:
   • The implication that the El C account is used by multiple people
   • Attacks on two editors otherwise not involved in the dispute
   • Reference to a previous warning of El C to Sashi as "railroading"
   • Accusing El C of having an WP:IDHT attitude.

I'm sure there are more diffs from this incident should anyone else want to find them.

Sashi has been warned multiple times, at AE, in unblock requests, and even in his initial unblock that he is wearing the patience of the community thin. He has been subject to 8 sanctions and/or blocks since his unblock, multiple ones based on inability to interact well with others, a battleground mentality, or harassment. He is now using admin accountabliity as an excuse to harass an individual who is trying to hold him accountable for his actions. Enough is enough.

Based on the above actions, which demonstrate a long-term inability to interact with others on this project, I am proposing the following:

SashiRolls is indefinitely site banned from the English Wikipedia by the community.

• Support as proposer TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support There is far too much drama associated with this account and the diffs above show entirely the wrong approach for a collaborative community. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It feels like every other day we're here with another thread about SashiRolls. I believe I said exactly this when their last unban conversation happened. They take up a lot of oxygen and time. --Jorm (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. Please open an ArbCom case. I will not have time to respond to this until the weekend (as obviously every single line of it is one-sided). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I had seen the unblock request and found the partial block to be too lenient, but didn't want to take unilateral action. And we don't need an arbcom case to implement a community ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - Why does it say that Sashi is blocked from an article that's fully protected? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  GoodDay, the protection happened after the block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I reckon his current 1-article block should be reversed, since it serves no purpose now. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  GoodDay, this discussion is practically about whether it should be converted to a full block. It will be closed after at least 24 hours, when consensus exists for how to continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support The pattern of behavior after the 2018 unblock shows that we've moved beyond second or third chances. Reading through the 2018 unblock discussion, the community extended a healthy amount of AGF: while the behavior in pursuing a sockpuppet was concerning, we assumed good faith particularly because Sashi was ultimately correct about the editor. Since then, the behavior that led to that block has not improved. Restrictions for incivility, multiple blocks for battleground behavior, multiple topic bans, a block for violating one of those topic bans---we have long since reached the point where the benefits outweigh the costs of having to manage these issues. This would be my position without considering the recent hounding of El_C, and when that behavior is considered, it simply reinforces my concern. Those opposed to unblocking in 2018 frequently pointed to WP:NOTTHEM saying that the unblock request focused on others rather than the behavior that led to the block. In these engagements with El_C I see the same behavior where SashiRolls seems to be trying to impugn El_C in order to get unblocked rather than grapple with their own behavior. The past year and a half do not give me confidence that their behavior will improve in the near future, and until it does, we should not continue to waste our time on this treadmill. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support a 6 month block, not a site ban--MONGO (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • MONGO, they’ve have several blocks before, as well as other editing restrictions such as topic bans and interaction bans, and they haven’t modified their behaviour. Do you think the 9th block will be the charm? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• SashiRolls, I think the best thing you can do, and you can do this right now, in less than 30 seconds, is to repudiate your hounding of El C and say you will not engage in that kind of behavior anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I will not continue to discuss El C. Nor will I respond to comments they make about me even if they refer to me 5 times in the comment. Upon further reflection, I cannot make this claim and defend myself. And since I will likely be banned before I have time to defend myself, I don't feel like leaving such a promise lying around. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • User:SashiRolls, you had time for almost a dozen edits here; surely you had time for a defense of sorts. I imagine that your "fix the lynching" edits took you quite a bit of time and energy, which would have been better applied in an actual defense. I can close this discussion right now as an overwhelming support indefinite site ban, and if you don't take the time to post an actual defense that is probably how this is going to end. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

      No, you can't close this discussion right now. It has to be open for 24 hrs; there's still 8hrs to go; I'll be posting an oppose vote before then, perhaps others will as well. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies:. Hi. You asked me to post a statement despite my being busy. You also asked me to say that I would "stop hounding" El C. Hounding, as it turns out, has a precise meaning:

Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.

I made a comment on my TP. El C deleted it. I deleted his follow-up comments on my page as there was no reason for him to be making comments on my talk page while preventing me from doing so. Then, he created a talk page section with my name in the header to chide me. O3000 chimed in. They chuckled a bit. IIRC I replied and El C deleted my reply. This is the escalation I was referring to. I did respond to their tone there and only there.

The only other place I've interacted with El C this month (one comment) was at the thread where Slatersteven reported my 2RR "violation". The story I mentioned about the copyvio image they were poking around with (some time ago) was discovered by happenstance insofar as the account that created it (Wikicreators) edited the 2019 Haitian protests page to promote a guy named Wesley Nortreus (again). (I am the principal author of that protests page.) This is how I found El C repositioning the copyvio image, rather than investigating it. Other than that, I'd be very interested to see if you had any evidence to back up your claim of "hounding", Drmies. You see, in an ArbCom case, you would submit such evidence during the "evidence phase" and people would frown on casting "aspersions" without evidence (see the 5 ArbCom cases on this). Here at AN... not so much, even administrators get away with it. Have a good one, Drmies. It was nice hanging out here with you for a while. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• OK then. I retract "hounding". You win that battle, because I won't be able to make the argument, probably until the weekend. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support – How many times do you get to use as an excuse for ongoing problems an event litigated long ago? You cannot hide behind this to continue battleground and harassment behavior. The editor is a negative (forget the modifier “net”) to the project and a time sink. O3000 (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support This says it all. Enough is enough. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support They have been even too many "last chances" and continue to be a drama-sink for the project. Enough is enough as stated above. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was in favor of unblocking Sashi Rolls when I commented at 02:00, 29 October 2018, and within three days, I was dismayed to see this editor engage in the very behavior that they had been warned against by so many other editors. After reading the evidence above, I have concluded that Sashi Rolls has core personality traits that makes productive, collaborative participation in this encyclopedia impossible. Their recent harassment of El_C is the straw that broke my back. Thanks to TonyBallioni for doing the work to assemble the evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The point of lesser sanctions like IBANs/TBANs/partial blocks etc is to reduce disruption. There are cases where people get heated up when editing a particular topic area, or interacting with a certain person, but having been sanctioned, are able to remain reasonable when editing elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's obvious from the number of different sanctions that have been enacted on Sashi since the 2018 unblock that this is simply not the case for them. When removed from one area, they become heated in another, and another, and another. It seems clear to me that they are not suited for working on the kind of loosely-structured collaborative project that is Wikipedia, and that we have given them enough chances to prove otherwise. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Note: Sashi just edited my initial post changing my words about his behaviour to suit him, and referring to it as a “lynching”. This is worth adding to the record here, as it demonstrates why this site ban is needed. This is not someone who is compatible with a collaborative project. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This shocking display of disruption and clumsy attempt at deception is additional rock solid evidence that Sashi Rolls must be site banned from this encyclopedia. Comparing a discussion about whether a person should be allowed to participate on a private website with an extrajudicial murder by a violent mob is reprehensible and grotesque. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment I highly suggest editors look at the diff. Aside from the edit summary describing this report as a “lynching”, it’s basically multiple swipes at various editors and administrators. I also suggest that interested editors look at the link for the AP topic ban and especially, the diff to the violation of said restriction. Honestly, his conduct in both areas seemed to me evidently disruptive and dismissive, but nor was it a particularly great look for some of the editors defending that latter page. A lot of this seems pretty petty. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    Purely disruptive, should be blocked for that alone. As TB says, not compatible with a collaborative project. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Far too many last chances. Use of the word lynching when that is actually happening in real life is repellent in the extreme. MarnetteD|Talk 05:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Well deserved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This user has been given more than enough chances to reform. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Previous disruption and absurd "lynching" claim aside, editing another's signed comments like that would be enough all by itself for me to block if he weren't already in the middle of a banning discussion. —Cryptic 09:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Not everyone is well-suited to collaborative encyclopaedia-writing, and sometimes a contributor needs to be shown to the exit.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I blocked Sashirolls for 6 months back in Dec 10, 2016, and while he mistakenly thinks I ""realized the error of that" block, it was designed to be a last chance. In fact, it was done at AE as a non-AE block for the sole purpose of making it easier for him to appeal once he realized it was his disruptive nature that was the problem. I'm not as optimistic now as I was then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  To be fair, that 2016 AE report was rather tainted by having been brought by SageCandor, a sock of ex-administrator Cirt. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely, but the block was about his behavior in a number of areas rather than the issue at AE, if memory serves me, which is why it was a non-AE block, and why it was not indef. SageCandor certainly stirred the pot, but that didn't excuse the behavior across the board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support This was it for me. Sometimes, some people just aren't suited to the nature and community norms of Wikipedia, that appears to be the case here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yep, this was a last chance. There's absolutely no point in going through the drama and time-wasting of an ArbCom case for something so obvious. Doug Weller talk 11:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I can't believe Sashi changed Tony's opening post, and changed it in the way that he did.[55] What is that — is he trying to make sure he's sitebanned? Bishonen | tålk 11:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC).
• Support and please weld the door shut behind him this time. SashiRolls' bellicosity and the resulting disruption have been an intractable problem for far too long. Attacking El_C and deceptively editing TonyBallioni's post are the latest in an exhausting series of misconduct by this editor. - MrX 🖋 11:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• The only reason for changing the opening statement of this section could possibly be that this editor wanted to be banned, so we should grant that wish quickly without waiting for loads more pile-on "support" votes. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  (probably stating the obvious, but 24 hours are mandatory; "snow" closure of such a discussion is forbidden per WP:CBAN) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Then I guess we have to wait another eleven and a bit hours. Fwiw put me down as a support. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support Multiple final chances, and their deceptive editing of TB’s opening post is the last straw. P-K3 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I was hoping we might have been able to come to an agreement short of a site ban, but I in light of the evidence presented, I cannot possibly consider that. I find their attempt to modify the discussion here particularly egregious. That level of deception combined with the lack of awareness (did they think we wouldn't notice) and contempt for the community is clear evidence that we are unable to trust them and that their editing cannot be safely continued. Nick (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

LOL. This was not done to deceive you, but to indicate the neutral subject headings which would have been appropriate for the matter. (Since I will not have time to put together diffs until this weekend). Here are few. 1) editing a user-page to fix misrepresentations, many of which were about me, in preparation for an eventual ArbCom case concerning the cabal did not seem to me to be a violation of a US politics topic ban. Fixing the misleading information about El C's mutual IBAN of Trypto & I was similarly simply correcting TonyB's POV presentation. I forgot to reorder the diffs concerning the subsequent El C story, the chronology was: 1) El C deletes a post on my page, 2) I delete his post on my page. (Not the other way around as it is currently presented.) Concerning GMO, there was a call (not made by me) for someone to show evidence of any disruption whatsoever in the topic area in the preceding 90 days. No diffs were ever added. Similarly, it would be good to note that AWilley is responsible for three of those actions and was criticized for them, just as the GMO ban was largely recognized as politically motivated, so too was the AP ban. Let's see what else? Oh yes, there's the real reason I was brought here... for noticing that El C had edited the site for 27 hours straight without a single 20 minute break. This, along with the minor issue of correcting a mistaken author name & misrepresentation of what the author wrote at Edward Colston is the reason for this ban. Don't blow the whistle on the cops... (in fairness, even if El C works 27 hour shifts, they often get it right, of course, which is not always rocket science...). So no, Mr. Nick... I'm fixing a deceptive prosecutorial statement not creating deception. As for the pile-on... have fun! As for the two-bit psychologizin' from the wiki-faithful, I'll take that with a grain or two of salt if you don't mind, since this is all about the backlash for criticizing a pseudonymous account for contributing for 27 hours straight without a break. (rather regularly I'll venture to guess, given their contrib totals). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• strong support It's clear the community's patience has been more than exhausted and if Sashi still hasn't learned after endless warnings, sanctions and blocks the only option is an indef and ban. Praxidicae (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It's been pretty clear they won't recognize the issues with their behavior, and we've already been punting the football around to different parts of the community. Pretty much the same stuff was going on back with their GMO-related sanctions where I edit starting in 2016 and into last year.[56][57][58] Especially in those last two, those being targeted by Sashi often were drug through the mud while trying to get the harassment to stop at AE, etc., in part because of the WP:NOTTHEM issues that inflamed battleground mentality and encouraged others to join in or dismiss Sashirolls' behavior.

Based on my experience trying to get help with Sashi, especially when it comes to this kind of behavior that has already been occurring with many "final" warnings, I would ask admins to not be so dismissive of this behavior in the future at AE, etc. for any editor. Letting that continue like it did only harms the community, and getting a lesser sanction imposed (topic/I-ban) for such obvious cases before reaching this point should not be that drawn out as happened in those cases. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Still no diff of disruption in the 90 days before that case you brought. Show us your diffs! :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (although I realise this is probably symbolic by now) provided SashiRolls agrees to stay away from El C and to raise any future issues with neutral intermediaries. The six problem edits listed above all look reasonable—assuming SR is correct that El C was editing for 27 hours solid (I haven't checked) it's in my opinion completely legitimate to raise concerns. As such, the issue is whether the sheer number of posts regarding El C constitutes harassment, and I'm not convinced that this has been demonstrated. To my mind, some variation of "I understand what I did wrong, I won't do it again, and I agree that anything further along these lines and I'll be kicked out" would be enough. SashiRolls is a long-term editor (13000+ edits over 8 years), not some random troll who's wandered in trying to start a fight; given how active they've been in contentious areas, it's understandable that they'll have been in more disagreements than a typical editor. (In the event that this doesn't result in an indefinite block, I would urge SR to stay away from contentious topics for a while. We have 6 million pages and 5.9 million of them are uncontroversial; just because an article on a controversial topic doesn't say what you want it to say, doesn't mean you have to be the one to fix it.) ‑ Iridescent 15:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This is probably as much as I'll add here, but plenty of us work in contentious areas without resorting to the things Sashirolls has done either above or before their 2018 block. There are some in contentious topics who get heated and can be reeled in a bit with sanctions that keep them in check. That hasn't worked here, and it's the battleground pursuit of editors like El C that goes beyond the pale in addition to all the warnings here.

You say not some random troll who's wandered in trying to start a fight, but it basically does come across as trolling when you see how they respond to attempts by admins to address their behavior or how they tend to jump into battleground behavior. Add in the sort of odd wikilawyering where they find small gaps between their many sanctions/warnings to say they haven't done anything within X days as sort of justification for continued poor behavior too. They've been building the case against themselves for years. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I largely agree with Iridescent's summary. The behavior is not ideal, but certainly doesn't rise to the level of a ban. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• I usually agree with Iri, but not in this case. I was uncomfortable with unblocking years ago, but definitely understood the reason (basic fairness). But in the 1.5 years since they've amply demonstrated that they're here primarily for the battles. After so many topic bans, it becomes clear it isn't about the topics, it's about the editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if someone causes more than a certain amount of disruption then we should show them the door, regardless of who they are or what they've done. This goes a long way beyond that. And this is beyond the pale. Hut 8.5 17:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. I also echo concerns with El C's 27 hour editing binge. I'm not sure the best administrative judgment can be exercised on such a rigorous editing schedule. Indeed the "edit warring" partial block which kicked this all off is completely unnecessary, and by nature punitive, given the protection to the page in question. El C has a history of questionable blocks on Sashi, and should have stayed away from that one. A check at El C's editing timecard shows no real difference in editing levels regardless of time of day, or day of week. Such round the clock editing really isn't necessary at a volunteer project, and next time when such concerns are raised it would be better to simply address them instead of circle the admin wagons. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  The next time someone makes snide comments about El C's editing schedule, they're getting blocked for a week. This seems to be a new talking point among a particular cohort here. It is going to end now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  You don’t get to dictate what I’m allowed to be concerned about. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I don't care what you're concerned about. I care what you choose to say about the personal life of another editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Editing stats and time cards are open and public. They are entirely appropriate to bring up and discuss when one has concerns, especially as they may pertain to admin accountability. I'm explicitly referring to Wikipedia activity, which has nothing to do with someone's personal life. Put away your block weapon and engage with discussion, not threats. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  There was nothing snide in Ernie's comment and you and I both know that a block would be a unhelpful escalation. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I suppose rather than being immediately blockworthy, a small group of friends repeating creepy talking points about someone else's personal editing schedule is more like evidence of a shared character defect than a personal attack. Even if I'm right, it might take focus off the actual problem. Which is perhaps the intention. I'm confident the closing admin will see it for what it is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that this talk of El C's editing schedule is creepy, none of anyone's business, and pretty clearly a derailment. Reyk _YO! 18:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's nothing creepy about the suggestion that someone who has been editing for 27 hours straight might find themselves making less than optimal administrative decisions. It would be nice if those responding to this concern could do so without resorting to ad hominems. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Describing this as creepy is certainly no more an ad hominem than suggesting (as it seems) that El C must have been irrational and delirious through sleep deprivation. Reyk _YO! 19:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  There's a big difference between 'must have been' and 'might have been'. And anyway, I'm more irked by Floq's insinuation that this is a group of friends (false) attempting to change the subject (also false, these concerns were initially raised before this thread was opened). Ernie's initial comment here was not 'snide' and Floq's threatening response was totally inappropriate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  In the interest of de-escalation... now that it's been brought to light, I don't see any point of continuing to torment El C with it. Also, I notice El C has been entirely absent from this case, where he is presented as the victim. I wonder under what conditions they would be willing to pardon me for looking into their edit history to see how long they deliberated before blocking me (it looks like it was 17 minutes) and discovering what I discovered. I mean is it really worth banning someone over?

  On June 6th, I asked in the ArbCom Harassment thread, quite a while before this began, whether using WMF tools was an invasion of privacy. I don't personally like the timecard tool, because it shows I have a strange sleep schedule. Unfortunately, nobody responded. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm pleased you've admitted to "tormenting" El C. That's a very clear admission of the type of toxic behaviour we should be striving to remove from our project. Nick (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  This would have been settled long ago had it not been brought here by Tony Ballioni or had El C been willing to compromise... I wouldn't have had to look into the matter. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  I think that's a bit unfair, Nick. You know that's not Sashi admitting they're "tormenting" anyone on purpose. Reyk _YO! 20:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ernie. The six magic bullets that are supposedly precipitating a site-ban each stem from the same—frankly, poor—block, which became increasingly pointless after the page SR had "edit-warred" over was itself fully protected. (FTR, I raised this with El_C the other day and was told it just seems pointless, to act on or even discuss this further and that it was inconsequential) Since we traditionally allow and respect the right of blocked users to vent over the block, why are we so up in arms in a case where the blocked editor clearly had a case against it and which can only have felt punitive folowing the page's full protection? In a similar situation, TB would be providing you with 100 diffs, if that had happened to a few other people here!
  By the way, why is diff #1 being used against SR when we explicitly state that Policy does not prohibit users...from removing comments from their own talk pages...? ——Serial ^# 17:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I provided 8 additional incidents, so I didn’t provide individual diffs for those. We allow individuals to vent, but we don’t allow them to attack and harass others (which as Floq has pointed out speculating about a users personal life is.) As for diff one, removing stuff is fine. Calling a reasonable response “escalation” when critiquing someone for not being accountable isn’t. It’s a diff that shows the battleground mindset here when taken as a whole.
    But the larger point here isn’t about the six magic bullets. It’s a question of whether or not one person should be allowed to consume so many resources of time on this project. Is there any other editor who has three outstanding topic bans (two above and one from AE), an IBAN, multiple battleground and harassment blocks, and multiple warnings that an indefinite block is around the corner that we tolerate? I can’t think of one.
    I usually dislike disagreeing with you and Iri, and I get the idea that we should try to keep good faith editors, but how many good faith editors has Sashi driven off this project by his behavior? Probably more than one. Is it really worth the potential loss of volunteers who do not take up so much of our time to save one person who takes up substantial time? How many topic bans and IBANs do we need before he reaches site ban level? TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't bring this to AN. I would guesstimate that the number of people I've caused to leave the projects is 3. Cirt (sock). Dan the Plumber (sock). Wikicreators (blocked by El C and possibly by Callanecc). I tend to be pretty nice to people who aren't too powerful or rude to me, for example. Were this ArbCom, you could submit evidence to the contrary in the evidence phase. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: Even if this is assessed independently from the conflict with El C, there are serious issues here. The long history of disruption and recent continuation, together with this blatant disregard for discussion guidelines and civil discourse (e.g. replacing American politics topic ban with Pissed folks off working on Media Coverage of Bernie Sander in the filing of this AN thread), are just not acceptable. Given that these have generally been long-term issues, this is a preventative measure. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral - I've been banned a year (2013–14) for far less. Not sure how to view this situation, other then it depends on how many toes you've stepped on & whose toes they are. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: SashiRolls has been a longstanding member of the community, and in that time has contributed a lot of helpful content to article pages and to community discussions. Even in the disputes listed above, SashiRolls has typically based their arguments on reliable sources, and their perspective has been valuable. I think it's fair to say that SashiRolls has too often lost their cool, either by hitting "revert" or by creating drama, often with the same editors on political articles. I'm not sure what the best path forward is but I think a site ban is too extreme. I'd also like to note, both on SashiRolls' behalf and for others as well, that the last few months have been very stressful for just about everyone on earth, and two-thirds of the diffs from the original post here are from that period. -Darouet (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough, Sorry to sound morbid but Sash has used the last bit of ROPE they had and at this point has hung themselves with it. Sash you need to get a grip and to be frank you seriously need to sort your shit out. I see no other option now unfortunately. –Davey2010^Talk 18:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I've not had a lot of direct interaction with SR, I don't think, but every time I've come across their name over the last few years, I've been left with the same impression: that they seem to have a particular kind of consistent battleground style characterized not by outright name calling or direct accusations of bad faith, but by pervasive winkyfaced insinuation, subtle personalization, and conspiratorial musing. It makes it harder to point to one or two diffs to hold up as especially egregious, but I find the effect much more damaging (and even chilling) than a more typical battleground approach. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  We interacted here where you empathized about dealing with difficult editor styles: "Most of us have been on the other side of an argument with a highly-active, highly-particular/fastidious editor enough to empathize with Sashi here". You told me not to dig into evidence of past socking and just put up with it as patiently as possible. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed. The user most recently known as FKC is/was a difficult person to work with. It was in later discussions related to ownership behavior that his socking came back up (and subsequently led to a block). Sanctioning a prolific editor based on WP:OWN is a massive undertaking, though, and rarely successful. My take from that thread, as I remember it, was that FKC was indeed being a bit OWNy, but not in the way that could realistically lead to sanction in that case. IIRC it really just needed additional voices. (On reflection, there, too, I had a rare attempt at humor at ANI fall flat (at the time I was proud of the number of Deleuze references I was able to squeeze into a noticeboard context, though)...). For the relevance to this discussion, while I don't think you did anything really egregious there (I would've said so at the time), I did find it concerning that it seemed like your instinct was to win a dispute by going after that person, looking for things from his past to use against him, with implications (or insinuations) for the present, whether intentional or not. That you were ultimately right about FKC and socking (and maybe even the content dispute itself) doesn't, IMO, make that ok, because that's a case that needs to be made at SPI, not ammo for an ANI thread about article ownership. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I listened to your advice and became the main author of that entry. This despite the fact that I find that book very difficult to understand. Some say that stopped clocks are right twice a day. Cirt, FKC... (see also Bulldog Antz. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I would be skeptical of anyone who says 1kP isn't difficult. Kudos on your efforts there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Attempting to work with an editor who consistently displays such a battleground mentality is exhausting; given SashiRolls' history of such behaviour it's not surprising we've ended up here. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent, Ernie, and Serial. None of the six diffs presented seem particularly problematic to me. Diff 1 is explicitly permitted by WP:OWNTALK and #6 was far from a "book length rant". I've written AfD rationales longer than that. What I see here is a user who is seriously concerned with a block he sees as unfair, and is disputing the block with the admin who implemented it. That's far from a vendetta. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I'm quite frankly stunned at the deceptive editing in this thread alone. A longstanding member of the community (as Darouet puts it) should know better. Nick hits the nail on the head here - they are exhibiting exactly the sort of behaviour we do not want in the community. stwalkerster (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Reserve judgment for a while, please. I'm with MONGO here. And Iridescent, too. There is absolutely no doubt that we can justify banning SashiRolls, based on the block log and history of extremely quick escalations to additional blocks in the past, but the more I look at it, the more it feels a bit like "give a dog a bad name". Kicking back at admins who sanction you is understandable. My question is, can this be de-escalated without resorting to a block or siteban? Looking at the state of the world right now I don't feel especially comfortable adopting the role of cop in a situation where on the face of it we might have been able to de-escalate. I don't know. Maybe I am wrong. Yes, SashiRolls is being a dick, and undoubtrtedly knows it. Can we get him to stop without the banhammer? Should we at least try? Guy (help!) 19:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• With that Guy. I was about to post earlier but decided not to. I don't like to see the ban hammer come done and sometimes it seems a bit like a pile on. I agree that SR's is working hard to earn a ban but I also see how in this case it was a small(ish) thing that grew. I think the deescalate is a great idea. SR needs to be part of that deescalation. Perhaps shelving the discussion for a week so everyone can cool down? Springee (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I’m not really sure what could be tried that hasn’t been tried already. I’ve been saying this a lot lately, but the biggest issue this community has is that we insist on giving people who are negatives every opportunity to prove just how negative they are. Is there really any doubt that if he’s not banned Sashi is going to continue exactly the same behaviors he’s been displaying for years? What does kicking it down the road get us other than saying we gave them another chance? I get that people don’t like the idea of sanctioning someone for harassing an admin who just blocked them, but that doesn’t make it acceptable conduct. If someone is “working hard to earn a ban” we should give it to them. ROPE does no one any good here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    TonyBallioni, no, and neither am I, but the whole situation never seems to have got below shouty from the first block onwards. We used to be much more reticent about sitebans. Guy (help!) 23:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Not a net positive to the project, as interactions that I've had with this user demonstrate. Has been given plenty of opportunities to adopt a more constructive course of conduct; has opted not to do so. The time to deal with this behavior takes time that could otherwise be used to actually improve the encyclopedia. This additional diff, from four years ago, demonstrates how long-standing and serious these conduct problems are. I don't get any pleasure out of supporting a siteban, but enough is enough. Rhododendrites, MrX all got it exactly correct here. Neutrality^talk 20:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent and Serial Number, and based on the evidence:
  • The first list of 8 is slightly out of order. #2 happened first. That was an AE report filed by King of Aces falsely claiming that Sashi was under a GMO TBAN. Sashi had never been tbanned from GMOs, as was pointed out in that thread by an admin. The thread was closed by El C with a two-way IBAN.
  • #1, #3 and #4 were all sanctions imposed by one admin for things Sashi said to X and others, including "dishonest" and "childish". I note that multiple editors have called Sashi's behavior "deceptive" and "creepy" in this thread, but none have been blocked for it (not saying that they should be).
  • #5 is another AE report where KofA again falsely claimed Sashi was TBANed from GMOs. This is again pointed out, by admin and non-admin. Also pointed out was the fact that Sashi had made zero edits in the GMO topic area since the previous AE thread, six months prior. The result was: a GMO topic ban being instituted. Single worst AE decision I've yet seen.
  • #6 Brought by MrX again over Sashi's complaints that X and others tag teamed. Diffs of the tag teaming were provided. The tag teaming was not addressed by admin reviewing the report.
  • #7 - "2 week block for violating the above TBAN 15 times" is a misrepresentation. Those "15 times" were 15 edits to one page (User:James J. Lambden/sandbox), which wasn't even an article, it was in userspace, and those were 15 edits in a row, which we all count as one edit. This mischaracterization should be stricken. The page was taken to MFD and kept. The page is a log of AE decisions that had not been updated in a couple of years. IIRC Sashi said they edited the page in preparation for an appeal of the TBAN issued in #6.
  • #8 - The partial block that leads us to the current dispute, and the "list of 6". As I understand it, after the partial block, the page at issue was full protected, which more or less proves that the partial block did not prevent the disruption, that is, Sashi was not solely responsible for the disruption.
  • List of 6: I agree with SN that #1 is policy compliant; it and should also be stricken from the list. As to the rest, if anyone edits for 24+ hours straight without taking more than a 20 minute break, it's perfectly legitimate to ask whether the editor is sharing an account, whether the editor is using a script or some other kind of automation, and whether fatigue is compromising the editor's judgment. This is especially true when the edits are admin actions. I don't believe El C is doing anything wrong here, but it's a legitimate inquiry. Nobody functions at 100% after 24 hours of sitting in front of a computer. And I very much disagree with the efforts of several admin here to treat this line of inquiry as if it were a personal attack.
  • Overall, Sashi has been uncivil, but to a very small group of editors, with whom there has been this long ongoing feud. I have said in those past AE reports (with diffs) that I believe Sashi was targeted since being unblocked by the same editors who got him sanctioned years ago. This feud has snowballed with each new sanction coming as the result of the previous unfair sanction. But the incivility from Sashi is narrowly focused at very few people, who frankly aren't blameless themselves. I would support two way IBANs all around, but not a site ban. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Levivich, since you are referring to Sashiroll's last GMO AE case, please do not misrepresent what I said, as that has only exacerbated trying to get Sashirolls' behavior dealt with. I never said that Sashi was under a GMO TBAN in the broad sense at the time. I only mentioned the Jill Stein ban where both politics and GMO DS applied to the content at hand. That broadly construed ban did not happen until later.

Instead, their original 2016 AE case resulting in a topic ban from Jill Stein was opened under both politics and GMO DS due to the focus of the behavior issues being related to Jill_Stein#GMOs_and_pesticides. If you actually read through the case, admins were very clear both sets of DS applied and that it "shouldn't be used as a red herring to distract from [Sashirolls'] poor behavior", as has unfortunately happened here. Sashiroll's issues in the GMO subject began there, and it's just silly to try to claim that because the the sanction wasn't double-logged under both sets of DS after the formal close that the Jill Stein ban shouldn't have been mentioned when additional GMO problems came up or the GMO DS didn't apply to issues at Jill Stein. That's just WP:PETTIFOGGING. The end result is they were still banned for disruption in a GMO subject.

In later cases, El C did close the 2nd GMO-related AE specifying a modified interaction ban that included an article ban, resulting in Sashi being banned from most GMO articles when you read their clarification on Sashi's talk page. That was related to hounding of Tryptofish. That was later clarified (3rd AE) and retooled due to logging confusion after the article ban was violated as a standard 1-way interaction + full GMO topic ban. That was easier to enforce, and an article restriction was basically intended in the 2nd AE case anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Just as a more summary note, trying to paint your very small group of editors, with whom there has been this long ongoing feud pursuing Sashi narrative falls apart when you try to reach like that or when someone like me who had next to no involvement with Sashi had to bring them to AE when I first saw disruption going on. That's just projecting Sashi's behavior problems on to those who have been subject to their behavior. Not to mention you were warned about battleground behavior at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#User:Levivich_long-term_tendentious_editing, which seems to be following Sashi's footsteps. When Sashi is continuing vendetta-like behavior towards El C that most of the community sees, that isn't an excuse to WP:SEALION about El C, and Floquenbeam has already given caution about that above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's the diff [59] in which you wrote, e.g.: "Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide DS from Jill Stein for six months", "They are already extremely short on WP:ROPE in terms of sanctions already being topic-banned in this area once", "1RR was partly why SashiRolls was topic-banned in this area before", and "Sashirolls was topic-banned for behavior related to GMOs as we're essentially having a repeat of that behavior all over again". However, it was pointed out to you by an admin that the topic ban was from Jill Stein under AP2, not GMO.

In the second report five months later [60], you again wrote, "Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide & politics DS from Jill Stein for six months". You also wrote, "SashiRolls is popping into GMO and pesticide related topics again, which I had hoped the last AE had tamped down". That's odd because the last AE ended with a two-way IBAN, so there's no reason to think it would tamp down on Sashi's participation in GMOs.

In that second report, the same admin wrote: "Kingofaces43, I pointed out to you in a previous AE discussion that SashiRolls' TBAN from Jill Stein was under AP2 discretionary sanctions, not GMO discretionary sanctions. You've repeated that erroneous statement here. The enforcement log is here. That's borne out by the administrator comments at the relevant AE discussion. It might seem like a minor point, but it is very relevant to establishing the locus of bad behavior; and if you continue to misrepresent it, it reflects poorly on you", and later, "Playing holier-than-thou isn't doing you any favors, Kingofaces43. I'm not going to excuse SashiRolls's behavior because of your choice of words, but his behavior doesn't excuse your throwing the kitchen sink at him, either. He was sanctioned for his behavior on the article on Jill Stein, including, but not limited to, material related to GMOs. And that's what you should have said. What you typed in your initial request is a misrepresentation".

And yeah, that two-way IBAN was appealed into a one-way IBAN while Sashi was blocked (the block is #3 on the OP list). Sashi wasn't given notice or an opportunity to participate. I asked for Sashi to be allowed to participate; the block was only one week; but the AE report was closed after one day by Tony. [61] Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 04:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remember it is inappropriate to cast WP:ASPERSIONS like that (especially bludgeoning false claims, which we have restrictions about in GMOs), just as it violates WP:NPA the misrepresent editors like that. In this case, trying to argue over extremely minor details and manufacturing something different from the context of what I said despite repeated clarifications is in violation of that and the definition of a red herring tactic, which admins in the case in question warned directly against doing. You obviously should know better at this point after your ANI warning, so I'm confused as to why you would want to double down on trying so hard to misrepresent those who've had troubles with Sashirolls.

At the end of the day, admins were extremely clear both GMO and politics DS applied in the Jill Stein case with Clarification as requested: the Pesticides and GMOs section of Jill Stein certainly falls under discretionary sanctions regarding "GMOs and agricultural chemicals, broadly defined". NW (Talk) 19:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[62] When I directly said and linked that Sashirolls was sanctioned in a subject where GMO DS applied, but you try to claim I'm falsifying that somehow because the AE log only listed it under the AP DS (when admins often don't double log for such cases), that goes well beyond violating WP:NOTBUREAU. The admin in question was later corrected and shown the relevant case. Even if someone misinterpreted my straightforward comment you quoted, a normal civil editor would just see all the clarification out there and continue on rather than to continue hounding me across admin boards. It's time for that to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Grudging Support - Whilst I think Sashi lists a few good points, and El C isn't acting much better, the fact that the user has been warned over and over again and continues to be disruptive shows that further action seriously needs to be taken. However, the siteban does not need to be permanent. I'd say maybe the user can make an appeal in at least 12 months time. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I've been trying to stay away from Wikipedia for the most part, because I've become sick and tired of the acceptance of incivility. I do look in sometimes, and I was aware of this ban proposal, but I intended to stay out of it because SashiRolls is under a 1-way IBAN with me, and even though that does not restrict me from commenting, I felt that it would be fairest for me to just stay out of it. But given what Levivich posted, that reflects back on me, and KingofAces' ping to me in his well-reasoned rebuttal (thank you!), I feel the need to express my support. As in, I've been saying this for years, and there have been enough second and third and umpteenth chances, and we long ago passed the enough-is-enough point. Levivich seems to be saying that we should let things go because only a "small group of editors" were on the receiving end. That's not even true, but even if it were, that would put me in that small group. Since when does Wikipedia think that if you are only incivil to somebody else, who cares? And this is way, way beyond just incivil. Ample reason for me to be sick and tired of this community. I see that some of the editors opposing the ban are "the usual suspects" and some, well, should know better. For those who should know better, TonyBallioni's opening explanation is spot-on, and you should take it seriously. In particular, there was a site ban some years ago, where SashiRolls was given a second chance after an appeal, and I told you so then. Enough is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Editor is a net negative unfortunately. -FASTILY 01:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The actual volume of problems this year are simply not site-ban worthy. Would not be opposed to an interaction ban with El C. Carrite (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The initial block was of dubious value, and looking at the content of the edits leading to the block, I am not in favour of the white-washing and misrepresentation that was taking place and which SashiRolls was actively countering. I refer to this (broadly) (source being misrepresented) and this (specifically) (whitewashing). That's some context preceding the block, which came 6 hours after the edit-warring stopped and with several intervening edits and no further conflict. With regard to the specific charge here, I paraphrase, 'pursuing a vendetta and harassment', I see little evidence that would go beyond 'a frustrated editor venting'. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I looked at this when it was first posted, and thought it was worthy of considering a site ban but at the same time thought it looked like the admins were circling the wagons. After reading thru this again with all of the diff-backed opinions, I serioulsy doubt this is something that should be left to AN. With the accused's statement they would like an evidence phase, etc., this almost looks like it is too complicated to be !voted on and really should have an organized ArbCom decision. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Grudging Oppose. I was ready for SashiRolls to be sitebanned when I requested an ArbCom case against him last year,[63] but what I am seeing here is two people being offended by each other and SashiRolls removing comments from his own talk page. Most of us are not able to edit at our jobs nor able to edit for 27 hours straight, and Floquenbeam 's threat to block anyone for daring to question that behavior is a shocking abuse of power. In the future, if a single instance of deceptive behavior can be shown by SashiRolls within a year's time I will support a site ban. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Kolya Butternut that Floquenbeam 's threat to block anyone for daring to question that behavior is a shocking abuse of power is indeed shocking and worthy of further scrutiny if not struck soon, which I recommend. Jusdafax (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding my agreement as well. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 06:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Floquenbeam - I have concerns about your threat also. I know you're reading into the comments as a personal attack. However, I believe that that is not the only way to interpret those comments. starship.paint (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark, Kolya Butternut, Jusdafax, CactusJack, Starship.paint, and Boing! said Zebedee: If you go back and read carefully, you'll see I already backtracked on the block threat yesterday. I do stand by the non-block related comments I made, so if you have a problem with that, please open a new thread at ANI. I don't want to help derail this discussion more than I already have. I will not discuss it anymore in this particular thread. I'll be happy to address it elsewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: You should strike the block threat, so those seeing it don't have to read carefully the rest of the section trying to work out if you've actually retracted it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- This is an extreme reaction to very minor civility violations. The first diff is even actionable, as far as I know, editors have free range to delete someone else's post on their own talk page. Everyone supporting this just has some type of vendetta against Sashi, the evidence presented here doesn't even come close to warranting a site ban. How about an IBAN between SashiRolls and ElC? Could that be a solution?--Rusf10 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  It’s hardly true that Everyone supporting this just has some type of vendetta against Sashi. I’ve never interacted with SashiRolls before, for instance. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Try deescalating - per Guy. starship.paint (talk) 06:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose- per El_C, whose statement below is clear, direct, and compelling. I salute him. Having indirectly worked with him a bit on vandal reverting, I understand what he is saying about simple rollbacks. As for Sashi, it's my view that he needs to seriously cool it and edit with collegial intent at the top of his concerns if he is to continue as a Wikipedian. I hope he will take El_C's statement and actions to heart, and extend the hand of friendship. I also feel this should be closed asap, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Jusdafax: - frankly, the faster this is closed, the more likely a siteban would be implemented IMO. starship.paint (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose- per El_C, although as note of advice to Sashi, please try to address the concerns raised. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per EL_C below, but I've also been sleeping on it and I'm going to say the rest of my piece anyway. In the recent events, I see nothing that comes close to harrassment. And by the very nature of this kind of request, SashiRolls' past has been cherry picked. Sure, SashiRolls reacted less than optimally to the block (and has reacted less than optimally a number of times in the past). But people are allowed to vent a little when they believe they have been blocked unfairly, and having a long block log should not deny them that consideration. I think it is also reasonable for a blocked editor to comment on an astonishingly long editing session by the blocking admin, and to question how much time the admin spent analysing the current situation. That brings me to something I just have to raise, and that's Floquenbeam's appalling behaviour here yesterday. No, Floquenbeam, it's not "a small group of friends repeating creepy talking points" or "evidence of a shared character defect", and your making those slurs (which are personal attacks, yes) has damaged my (very high) respect for you. As for trying to dictate what we can and can not discuss by threatening to block anyone else who mentions it, that's an abuse of your admin power - so don't try anything like that again, or you know where it will end up. Anyway, to SashiRolls, if this ban request does not succeed, please really try a bit harder to cool it and step back when you're in a dispute - and perhaps edit on less controversial subects? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This is the second time in less than a month that TonyBallioni has proposed sitebanning an editor based on out-of-context, cherrypicked, and/or misconstrued evidence (see here for the other one). Perhaps a restriction preventing him from proposing site bans is in order. Let's say for the next 12 months. There is no shortage of other admins and established editors who can propose site bans for truly banworthy editors. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 07:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  CactusJack, the number of good faith Supports above suggests that this is not a capricious proposal. Something needs to be done. I just don't think we've run out of options quite yet. Guy (help!) 07:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Both proposals had significant support because both users had been warned in the past that they were on their last warning and would be indef’d if they continued disruptive behaviour. The former I had been involved with administratively in enforcing sanctions. This current one was unlikely to be proposed because anyone who deals with Sashi knows that he takes things to the extreme and it would likely not be a fun experience all around. I was willing to propose something a significant portion of the community supports. Two proposals isn’t a trend, and both were well founded, and in all honesty should have passed. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I have also noticed this concern regarding User:TonyBallioni and also feel he should step back from these kind of multiple proposals, we don't need single admins becoming excessively central to control of any aspect of the project, User:Bbb23 comes to mind as a similar situation. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Your comment is not helpful at all, Govindaharihari, and I suggest that you retract it. There's no need for gravedancing.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 12:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider that comment to be gravedancing under any circumstances (it's a perfectly valid point), but it is worth noting that Bbb23 is basically back despite his protestations to the contrary. He may not be editing at the same rate as before, but he's not gone. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent, Serial, Darouet and Levivich, with a nod to El C below. I don't condone SR's occasional incivility (which I've never personally witnessed, I should add), but I don't think they should be targeted for an indef block after a series of questionable bans. Wikipedia is as much an adversarial system as it is collaborative, and on occasion people get "pulled in" and a minor infraction evolves to a full blown case. This is what happened here, and it owes not only to SR's comments but also to the admins, who in good faith kept the ball rolling. Does it merit an indef block? Let's put it this way: editors have been known to avoid less for worse. I encourage everyone to do some soul-searching on their role in this, and SR to take a few days to cool off. François Robere (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

• Support - I've had enough experiences with SR to know that this isn't isolated, and is part of a pattern of personal attacks against editors with whom he disagrees politically. --WMSR (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Because I understand that SashiRolls became frustrated when the same admin that has previously placed sanctions and warnings on an unrelated matter blocked them, and they felt it was unjust because there was no 3RR violation in itself. In particular, the previous indef block and talkpage access removal was turned on its head after this deletion review. But with the comments by El C and SashiRolls here, everything seems to be alright and de-escalated now. Tryptofish above notes that some of the editors opposing the ban are "the usual suspects". This is equally true with some of the editors supporting it, as some editors from both the GMO and American politics seem to have a reunion party each time sanctions are on the table for SR.--Pudeo (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The potential list of named parties for an ArbCom case practically writes itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent and others. I'm particularly moved by El C's statement below. Calidum

• Oppose too many people are relying on evidence-less posts and cases to make a decision in this thread. Besides, I kind of like being able to contribute to "knowledge equity" and have shown that I am somewhat useful in that endeavour. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There's no need to jump straight to the nuclear option. Also, the diffs do not show a pattern of harassment. The first is, quite simply, allowed. The fourth and fifth diffs are just POINTy. The sixth is understandably a bit fiery in tone because the user was recently blocked, but does not appear to contain harassment or personal attacks. #3 is a justifiable concern—I know I at least would have a hard time functioning after more than 24 hours without sleep. #2 is the only problematic diff, and even that one isn't outrageously uncivil. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A couple of editors have now made the point that it was not harassment and therefore should be allowed. If in fact this does end up at ArbCom, one of the key questions they will have to examine is why the community could not resolve this. And that's a very important question, that we should all be asking ourselves. After all, this really is a no-brainer, or at least it would be in a more healthy community. And I think one important part of the answer resides in this perception that we have a dial with only two settings: zero and harassment, with nothing at all in between. It's like: he didn't actually stalk anyone at work or out anyone, so it's just the normal rough-and-tumble that we have come to expect on the internet. That's never been what our policies say, but it's a growingly popular argument for editors to make. And shame on us all if we let that stand. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I assume that's at least in part aimed at me, as I was the first in this thread to say it. What I'm saying is that going by the diffs presented there's nothing among them that I'd consider to be unambiguously inappropriate. In the absence of anything that meets the "that's clearly unacceptable, get out" test, we have to consider whether the diffs as a whole demonstrate an inappropriate course of conduct intended to needle El C. Given that El C doesn't appear to think so, we don't even have the (unsatisfactory, but sometimes necessary) "one or the other is going to end up leaving over this, so we need to pick a side" consideration to fall back on. Whenever it comes to any kind of editor conduct case, I'll always default to the position that the conduct should be considered unproblematic unless it can be demonstrated that it's problematic, and as speaking as someone who has no opinions on any of the topics SR has been editing (and AFAIK has never interacted with SR before although I may be misremembering), I'm not seeing anything thus far to demonstrate that SR has done anything more problematic than "got a bit tetchy when discussing a contentious topic". ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Maybe in very small part, but I was far from thinking of you in any primary way, not by a longshot. (Earlier, I distinguished between "the usual suspects" and "those who should know better", and I guess you're the latter.) But let me say this: if you think that this is only about a couple of recent edits, then I doubt that any site-ban should be based on just that. There is a long, long history here, and "the straw that breaks the camel's back" doesn't have to be the entire load on the camel's back. And if you regard, for example, the refactoring of this AN page as less than harassment, well, I'd agree it's less than that. But my larger point is that if you think it's OK, then you are wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I think this is what it's come to. His intransigence and long block log make me feel that the odds of improvement in the near future are slim. TonyBallioni has made a solid case that these issues have gone on for too long.Hko2333 (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Sorry for my absence here, but I've been a bit overwhelmed by recent real life events of some gravity. For my part, although the exchanges on my talk page got a bit intense, I seek no siteban or any other additional sanction against SashiRolls. I also now regret not having lifted the partial block once I fully-protected the page from which they were partially blocked from. My mindset at the time was that a note in the block log to that effect would have been pointless, since I continue to stand by the partial block itself. But in the spirit of deescalation, I have lifted the partial block from both SashiRolls and Defacto. I realize it's late in the day, but I hope that, even in some small way, it helps to better facilitate a calmer editing environment. That said, I don't think my day-long editing (it was the weekend and I found myself with an excess of free time) compromised me in any way. Most of these edits were simple rollbacks that took a few seconds to parse. Still, I appreciate good faith concerns regarding my health and well-being. Thank you, but I am doing alright. El_C 05:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Based on comments above, how about this?

1. SashiRolls is banned for one year from "drama boards" with the exception of neutrally stated appeals against any sanctions against SashiRolls applied by an admininstrator;
2. SashiRolls is warned that personalising or escalating disputes may lead to escalating blocks.

Or something else? Guy (help!) 08:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what we need to do, but I'd certainly Support this over a ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Just to add, I think an escalating blocks approach is far better than banning. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• JzG, maybe a "final warning" may be in order, broadly construed. I am not an admin, but this is what got me to make more productive edits to the encyclopedia.
  
  Instead of what you have for bullet 2, maybe "SashiRolls is given a final warning regarding disruption on the encyclopedia, broadly construed. Should an admin determine that they are causing any sort of disruption whatsoever, the user may be blocked for any period of time, up to and including indefinitely." with WP:SO still applying.
  
  I know from past experience that we do not want to block or sanction good-faith contributors, but sometimes it is necessary to ensure that further disruption does not occur. Aasim 08:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - better than an indef, given El_C's response above. SashiRolls would do well to note that they are on extremely thin ice now. If it's a final warning, I'd support also. starship.paint (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Starship.paint, We need a "This user is drinking in the last chance saloon, please don't provoke them" userbox. Guy (help!) 09:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as third choice especially on point 2. Escalating blocks have been tried and failed. The only solution to this problem is a site ban, and we don’t need formal instructions that he’ll use to require another 18 months of disruption before it occurs. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Edit:Supporting as third choice because I believe some community resolution here is a much better outcome and would be less divisive than an ArbCom case. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - He has had plenty of final warnings and blocks. His involvement with "drama boards" is not even a significant problem. He is not getting it and all the evidence makes it clear that he never will. - MrX 🖋 13:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been tried already. They were already banned from AE boards in a similar manner, and have received multiple "final" warnings similar to 2. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support I think escalating blocks makes the most sense. If SR violates CIVIL then start with 24hr ban. The next time it's 48hr then 1wk then 1m then 3m then 6m then indef. Each time is longer but we go through all the steps. By sticking to the escalation path there is no question, no misunderstanding regarding what is happening. There is also no case where the next penalty is far more severer than the last one. They should also understand that they need to stick to the facts and avoid personalizing the description of disputes. Springee (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've been here before. This just kicks the can down the road. We'll be right back here again in 3,6,8 months and in the meantime they can continue to eat up our time, patience, and frustration spoons.--Jorm (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This kind of nonsense makes me ashamed to have ever been associated with Wikipedia. Really, what I am seeing here is institutional failure happening in real time. All of this argument over something that should have been a no-brainer! Anyone who thinks there is a need to tread carefully over someone who still can make positive contributions is living in an alternative universe. In a normal real-world workplace, someone who acted this way would have been fired years ago. Someone who is maybe 90% a net negative should not be pampered out of concern for the last 10%. Jytdog was site-banned, with support for the ban coming from many of the same people who are defending SashiRolls here, but Jytdog contributed a lot more good than SashiRolls ever will. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I wrote below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - already had enough warnings. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been enough warnings and escalating blocks to know if that would work. I'm not convinced that anything has changed since previous warnings and blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposed final warning

In case the site ban does not pass, I’m proposing this because I think the above proposal will create more harm than good, so let’s try this:

SashiRolls is warned that future personalization of disputes or battleground conduct may lead to an indefinite block or site ban.

• Support second choice SashiRolls has behaved in this thread in ways that would have gotten any other editor a lengthy block. He needs to know he is on his last bit of grace here. The sanction above would constrain us. This is clear and gets the point across while taking into account the significant portion of the community that does not think Sashi should continue to be a part of the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I'm not sure 15-20 editors active at a noticeboard represents a significant portion of the community, but I understand what you mean. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support second choice I'm surprised that so many apparently want such an obviously disruptive editor to be allowed to carry on being disruptive, so this is a bare minimum.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment - I disagree that the site ban will not pass. By the numbers, it has rough consensus now. By the arguments, it probably has consensus. If this can't be meaningfully resolved here, it needs to go to Arbcom. There is zero evidence that another final warning would resolve this. - MrX 🖋 13:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • True, I’ve updated my wording: the site ban might yet pass. I think the community handling this issue would probably be better then ArbCom, which would probably be a few weeks for an outcome that has another topic ban or some form of civility parole. Neither of which would work that well, in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • We shouldn't go to Arbcom with a case as flawed as this.  I don't think any new warning is necessary either; I think it should just be acknowledged that Sashi has already had a final warning.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I don’t really see the case as flawed (obviously), I just don’t think ArbCom will really do much. They don’t historically have that great a record on user conduct cases focused on individual users. For those, community solutions work best, even if short of a site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I think the evidence-based comments in this thread show that there might be some things that ArbCom could do. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I also don't see it as flawed at all and I don't understand the basis for such a remark. I'm 99% confident that Arbcom would take the case. If people are going to oppose a workable remedy based on the their unwillingness to see past the isolated incident involving El_C and the blatant editing of another editor's comments, then I don't think there will be any other option but to let Arbcom handle it. This wouldn't be the first time that the community was unable to deal with a persistent user conduct issue. In fact, I would postulate that it's the norm. - MrX 🖋 13:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that by !votes the above is a rough consensus for a site ban. However, in the case of something like a site ban I would hope that the standard would be a clear and convincing consensus. Additionally, as the discussion has progressed more information has come to light. Early on I would have said the need for the ban is obvious based on the evidence presented. However, some of the later arguments have changed my mind. Specifically the parts where editors have noted some of the blocks were bad and the levels of incivility, while not a good thing, have not risen to the levels previously needed to justify a site ban. This does smell of a misdemeanor prosecuted as a felony. Hopefully the fact that so many editors were happy to kick SRs off the island will be a clear warning that they must avoid personalizing disputes and that community patience with them is at an end.

Since the issue here was started by a 3RR, would a 1RR and strict civility mandate be OK? Basically if they violate those things then they get escalating blocks (24hr, 48hr, 1week, 1month, 3month, 6month, indef)? Absent obvious cross the line personal attacks I don't see why escalating blocks aren't sufficient. Springee (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer something along the lines of the Revised proposal above, but I'll support this as second choice and ahead of a site ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. We've given them many many warnings. They've had enough rope. --Jorm (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• A better way to word this would be: "SashiRolls is warned that future personalization of disputes or battleground conduct may lead to another discussion that will lead to another warning about future personalization of disputes or battleground conduct." That, after all, is exactly what is happening here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I haven't supported many sitebans/indefs of experienced editors over the years. There's usually another way. Sometimes it's a tban, sometimes a warning, sometimes a more creative solution... In this case, the issue is SR's fundamental approach to interaction with people he disagrees with. There have already been blocks, warnings, restrictions, etc., and a really-real-no-seriously-we-mean-it-this-time warning isn't the answer here. Pre-voting on an ArbCom case isn't either (in addition to being like using a case to vote on whether to appeal that case, we can't compel them to take it, and besides, I think it would cause more hurt than help and would likely result in some sort of ban anyway).
  If there's going to be an alternative to a siteban here, I'd like to see that proposal come from SR himself, earnestly reflecting on what's going on here and putting forward an argument for whatever remedy he thinks would be effective. I don't know about others, but I feel like if I'm going to be convinced, only SR can do it. If that's unsuccessful, we assess consensus of the siteban proposal. If there's no consensus for that, then see about arbcom. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, you make an excellent point. Guy (help!) 10:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:AN cannot assign "final warnings". Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

And you think that why, Reaper Eternal...? ——Serial ^# 23:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• I support a stern warning to SashiRolls regardless of whether we go to ARBCOM; their behavior has been sub-par despite their being offered many opportunities for course correction. For clarity, I understand "final warning" to mean "next time you do this, any uninvolved admin may indef you without further discussion, and that indefinite block carries the same weight as a community block". I don't see how this is outside AN's remit, if backed by consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support only if the site ban doesn't pass. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• If the final warning is not heeded and this sanction comes to pass (e.g. block post final warning), won't it still end up at ArbCom anyway? Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Propose ArbCom case rather than this RfC/U

I would suggest that Tony (or anyone else who wants to) start an ArbCom case where evidence is required. This reliance on a series of severely flawed cases to continue to escalate blocks, warnings and deprecations does not seem fair to me. The GMO case is the most obvious case, since no diffs of disruption whatsoever could be provided. Similarly, my principal complaint concerning tag-teaming in the AmPol case was not addressed at all. Here too we see a number of people making evidence-less assertions about, for example, "hounding" (as was the case in the December 2016 AE where I had responded to an RfC Cirt started when I was subscribed to the RfC topic area). I've been sanctioned for calling someone's actions "childish" and "dishonest". Fair enough. Here we've seen claims of "creepy" cabals, claims of "deception" and have editors opining that I should be banned and then telling me to "get my shit together". While that last particular comment (above) is particularly exemplary of the lack of evidentiary basis, there are precious few evidence-based supports above. A sequence of bad cases has indeed given me a bad name.

All that said, I am willing to accept that I should not have given El C such a hard time about maintaining a block that was no longer preventive (leaving aside the question of its potential original merit), and latching onto what I thought might have been a plausible explanation for what I perceived as being nothing more than tired stubbornness. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose the community is perfectly capable of dealing with this on its own. Many of those opposing the ban agree the conduct as a whole is inappropriate and just want more intermediate steps: when the community is handling something (which it has been) there is no need for an ArbCom case. I have faith that community outcomes here will solve the problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think it is important for Arbcom to look at this, as the behavior of those routinely antagonizing SashiRolls will be able to be examined as well, instead of the very one-sided nature of the evidence presented at community ban discussions. Levivich, for example, has produced a great many diffs of behavior that doesn't reflect well on those who pop up at every discussion regarding Sashi. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support agree with Mr Ernie. The community is plainly divided on what further actions, if any, need to be taken. So, let's punt this to the committee that we elected for situations such as this one. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Very grudging support. Based on experience thus far this year I think my cat probably has more likelihood than the current iteration of the committee of coming up with a equitable resolution to an long-running dispute that touches on both content and conduct—and I have no desire at all to spend the next month being dragged into what's likely to be a foul-tempered timesink of a case—but if a case split (at the time of writing) at 31 supports and 20 opposes with both SashiRolls and El C among the opposes isn't a textbook example of a serious conduct dispute the community has been unable to resolve, I don't know what is. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have to support this, as I don't think SashiRolls is getting fair and balanced treatment here. I do pause, because I'm not confident that the current ArbCom (despite having some excellent individuals) will provide that either. But the more this goes on here, the more it really does look like a dispute that the community is unable to resolve. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Boing! said Zebedee and Iridescent: I guess my main reason for opposing this is that I’m not particularly confident in this iteration of the committee. Not even on the Sashi getting fair treatment vs. not or even on a ban vs. lesser sanctions than that field, but on a “would we actually get a resolution that everyone can live with even if begrudgingly” standard. I don’t think we would, even if like you say, there are some good members of the community on it. That’s why I’d rather let some form of community action play out, whether it be a warning, a ban, or something like Guy’s suggestion above. Getting a resolution people can broadly get behind is ideal, and I think that’s much more likely at this point in time via community action, even if it’s saying “Tony’s proposals are crap, let’s move on.” TonyBallioni (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • This is a set of circumstances I've never seen before on Wikipedia (although it probably has happened), in which the supposed victim doesn't appear to see any problem, but a bunch of other people are insisting that a problem exists. (In an ideal world SashiRolls would say something like "I appreciate that I'm having difficulty controlling my temper on contentious topics, from now on I'm going to limit myself to writing about the traditional cheeses of Belgium or biographies of 19th-century poultry breeders", which would likely put an end to it, but we can't force someone to constrain themselves in that way.) As there's clearly no obvious consensus in either direction, and no indication that the situation is going to resolve itself, this falls squarely into Arbcom's remit. Like you I have very little confidence in this version of the Committee—there are some very intelligent and well-intentioned people on it but for whatever reason, they're just not gelling this time. However—as I said last year in a similar context—we can't drag Wikipedia to the point of open civil war in defense of the principle that Arbcom has ultimate sovereignty over editor conduct issues, only to then decide we don't trust Arbcom and we're going to ignore them. ‑ Iridescent 15:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I understand your points, yes, but at the moment I'm really not seeing the community coming to any kind of useful consensus here. If that should change in the coming days, I'll be happy to revisit my support for taking this to ArbCom. But as it stands, I think it's the lesser of two evils and all that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Boing, that’s fair, I just really don’t like the idea of having a proposal to start a case when there’s currently greater than 60% support for a community resolution. That might not be consensus, but what we have here is the opposers of that suggesting a case, and the supporters saying “no, the community can handle it”. There might be a case needed, but I think waiting for the close to see how it ends is best. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

        TonyBallioni, if it’s closed as no consensus or oppose site ban, would you consider the community having solved it and it no longer necessary to go to Arbcom? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

        • Yes. I’m fine being on the “losing” side of community consensus. I propose what I think is best, and if others disagree with me, that’s fine. I really don’t like the ArbCom idea because previous cases on one user haven’t really worked out well: the TRM situation springs to mind as the most obvious, but there have been others. I’d personally rather get some community resolution, even if it’s that I’m off my rocker, than have a 2 month case, a compromise sanction that no one really likes, and then repeated attempts at enforcement that no one can come to a consensus on. I think that’d be the most likely outcome of a case. I don’t think those type of situations are ideal for the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

          Pardon me, the the TRM situation? I thought it would be polite to let people know when you're talking about them, especially as an admin. I'm happy to report that in the past few months I've reviewed a couple of hundred GANs/FLCs, written a couple of dozen GAs, had a handful of FAs pass, and I'm enjoying it all. Bringing me into this needs to be contextualised, and if you're doing it to prove something negative, then all I'll say is that I've been nothing but positive for the project for quite some time. Next time you choose to drag my name into things, at least have the courtesy to let me know. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

          The Rambling Man, it wasn’t a comment on you (to my knowledge we’ve never had a bad interaction, even when we may have disagreed.) It was just a statement that the case on you and the subsequent enforcements, ARCAs, etc. have shown that one person cases don’t usually go well after the fact. Whether it be because the principles were flawed, the enforcement is heavy handed, or whatever reason. My sincere apologies. It really just was about the case as an example of how complicated these things turn out, not about you. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It would actually be a better idea to have more than one named party. There are certainly enough enablers that, if this goes to ArbCom, a bunch of other people could be in line for lesser sanctions than a site ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes and aspersions like that would likely be removed. It may be helpful for you to take a look at this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop#Aspersions.

Also, thank Tony that was well put. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you think I meant you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. ArbCom is for intractable issues the community cannot handle. That wouldn't really be an option until the above proposal is closed (e.g., if the community doesn't find a solution). We're still at a point that the closer can weigh the above and make a decision, so this seems premature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - if this isn't intractable, I don't know what is. The poisoned tree has borne a bounty of fruit, and SashiRolls' sanctions and blocks have thus escalated far beyond what is reasonable for the circumstances. At the same time, there is clearly behavior that needs to be addressed. I have very little faith in the current ArbCom, but I'm not sure what good it would do to punt this until next year, while the poisoned tree continues bearing fruit in the meantime. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 16:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I wasn't sure at first per the comments above, but what's put me into the support column is the posting of a GMO DS notice and accusations of misconduct on my talk page in response to my oppose !vote above. I view this is the same kind of needless escalation that Sashi faced. We can't go on like this forever. Arbcom may not be perfect but who is, and at least they will make a decision and perhaps put an end to the never-ending exchange of accusations. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that Kingofaces43 should be a named party to the dispute if such a case is made to ArbCom. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support with regret. Any situations that get to an Arbcom case are saddening, not because I don't think Arbcom are capable of dealing with them, but because it inevitably means that people have had a great amount of time lost and strife caused during the processes which led them there. That being said, reading through the above, I don't think anyone could reasonably deny that these are some very, very complicated issues we have going on here, and I think it would be very difficult for a discussion closer to make a well-judged, well-informed and proper close for this in a community fashion. I do think that it's important that we have trust in Arbcom's ability to handle these sorts of things, and the format of the forum there will, I feel, be significantly more conducive to resolving the matter at hand than a standard community discussion would. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The issue is that this discussion has not been exhausted. There are at least 30 members of the community who are willing to let this be settled here and now via a community action. They might not get consensus, but the discussion needs to be closed first. If after the close here, people still want to file a case they can, but we should let someone close this first. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @TonyBallioni: I'm happy to wait for a close, but unless anything earth-shattering comes up, I can't see how the close would be anything other than no consensus. I agree with you that many of those opposing the ban agree the conduct as a whole is inappropriate and just want more intermediate steps, and I can totally see why you've proposed what you have; the only bit on which I disagree with you is as to the appropriateness of Arbcom where there is disagreement on what the community's response to problematic behaviour should be. Of course, I could be proven wrong (wouldn't be the first time!) - maybe something dramatic will happen and there will be a clear outcome.
      I suppose the other thing worthy of mentioning is that "take it to Arbcom" is inherently now an option for the closer, so I don't think this is precluding a close so much as it is offering additional options for it. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 18:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a community problem, not an Arbcom one. Arbcom is for intractable problems; in this case, our intractable problem (SashiRolls' behavior) is easily solved with "siteban", above.--Jorm (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Meh. The community is not capable of dealing with this, because the community has become the same kind of toxic culture that pervades so much of the internet. Maybe ArbCom will do what the community cannot. I wish whoever ends up as the filing party good luck and a strong stomach. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The case request could be filed as either something like "SashiRolls and others" or something like "Battleground editing", and should probably have something like four or five named parties in addition to SashiRolls. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've looked back over this entire discussion, and also thought about previous discussions about sanctioning SashiRolls, in regard to how an ArbCom case might be constructed, and particularly in regard to who the named parties might be. And as I look back, I notice a pattern. There are multiple assertions of administrative abuse, and they are entirely one-sided. (Now don't get me wrong here. I've always been a strong advocate that administrators must use their privileges appropriately, and that misuse should not be tolerated.) El C edited continuously for too long: admin abuse! TonyB started this discussion: admin abuse! Floq told editors to stop badmouthing El C: admin abuse! All of the admins at AE have been getting it wrong every time: admin abuse! COVID-19: admin abuse! (OK, I'm joking about that last one.) But very seriously: AE isn't decided by just one or two admins, and when so many different AE admins have come to the same kinds of conclusions over and over again, across multiple DS topics, are they all really that wrong? And over all the history of the disputes about SashiRolls, it's always come from his defenders, and never (that I can recall, maybe someone will find an exception in an ArbCom case) from his critics. It will be important for ArbCom, if it ends up there, to examine why the community could not resolve this problem ourselves. Who repeatedly stymied it? It would be an oversimplification to say: just look over this AN discussion, and anyone who asserted admin abuse, there's your list of named parties. But it would not be too far off the mark. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

    I find it rather amusing than when I did a ctrl+F for 'admin abuse', the only results in this thread were the 6 instances of the phrase in your own comment. Obviously, that same point can be made with different words, but in this case I think you've mischaracterized (or perhaps miscaricaturized) the opinions of several people. Not all criticism of an admin is tantamount to an accusation of gross misconduct. Perhaps it would be more instructive if you could point to the specific accusations you found objectionable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support. This meets the test of materiality (we are talking about a site ban, for which there is significant support), and recurrence (the block log is long, the underlying issues can't be avoided further). However, having read the above, the situation is too complex, as evidenced by the diversity of opinion, for a solution here. The situation demands long-term resolution, for all our sanity. Surely this is what ArbCom is made for? Britishfinance (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per what I wrote above. Only really bothering to !vote because this proposal has the dangerous possibility of getting support for something it can't actually deliver. We can't compel arbcom to take a case. They're the ones who vote on it, and it's based on whether our processes worked. If we use our process to try to make that decision for them, that misses the point (and, I think, runs the risk of creating a time paradox, the result of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space-time continuum and destroy the entire universe!). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: Hopefully we won't destroy the universe here That being said, I get what you're saying for sure. I think the thing that I'd probably note with that is that, whilst we can't compel arbitrators to take a case, it'd be very unlikely in my view that they would decline a case where the community had chosen to refer it to them. Further, even if they did do so, that would be an answer in and of itself - much like "re-open nominations" is a valid result from various election systems in organisations. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: I'm not sure whether this is a deliberate echo of the close with no action of Crossswords v. Sagecandor where Cirt accused me of being a Russian agent or not? it's probably best to close this before it creates a singularity of wiki-ridiculousness that sucks the entire Internet into a parallel universe. Also, did you happen to notice that the ANI comment I mentioned in response to your comment above (about our previous interaction) related to a recently-blocked sock? Just for information, I had been informed off-wiki that they were a sock of the user they were blocked for "being", but chose to walk away rather than create further drama. That is one of only two "drama board" threads I've ever posted in my career at en.wp. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No, it's not a reference to anything other than the voice of Doc Brown that entered my head as I thought about a process intended to begin upon the failure of the community to act based on the community acting to begin that same process. I'm usually critical of attempts at humor at ANI, so serves me right that I was misunderstood (it's a direct quote from Back to the Future). Sorry about that. I'll respond to the other part inline. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support it's self-evident from the discussions above that the community absolutely can't resolve this so this is precisely what Arbcom is "paid" to deal with. No brainer, and would be good to see this year's crop earn their living. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that we need to !vote on this when any interested user may take this to ARBCOM. I'm beginning to feel, more and more, that we need a more structured environment to explore the conduct of all the involved parties here; not El C, but the ones SashiRolls has had longer-standing conflicts with. I've seen a lot of SR's disruptive behavior as an admin at AE and elsewhere, so I'm sympathetic to Tony's argument above, but I think the heat to light ratio here is poor, and it may improve at a different venue. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, this is precisely why I proposed a drama board restriction - to see if the problem is reduced when SR is focusing on content rather than drama. Guy (help!) 10:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  @JzG: I see where you're coming from, but I don't know if that goes far enough; I think SR's problem is that they handle conflict poorly, and as such removing him from the drama boards will only deal with one of the symptoms. Furthermore, I'm unconvinced that they're the only one here whose behavior has been sub-par. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  Vanamonde93, you are probably right. And since we don't seem to have anything between drumhead and ArbCom, it's hard to see what to do for the best. Guy (help!) 14:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – Well, if this isn’t resolved here now, and arbcom correctly rejects, see you all here yet again in a coupla months. Meanwhile, as Vanamonde suggests, anyone can go bother arbcom anytime they wish. O3000 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • SashiRolls, this is your opportunity to start your own Arbcom case. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think I can Support- I read through everyone else's comments on this and came to the conclusion that this might be necessary. The case would have to involve a lot more people that just Sashi though. A good starting point would be for Arbcom to review AE enforcement actions against Sashi. He wasn't treated fairly there (especially here, but that's part of a larger problem that probably requires reforming or replacing the AE process. I also still have faith in the community resolving problems, but this is complex and AE actions that have been taken need to be reviewed.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose to the extent that anyone can file a case at ArbCom, consensus isn't required or necessary for that to occur. It also appears to me that the community is currently handling this issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. One example of differing civility standards and associated penalties that this thread reminded me of: this contribution (only admins can see the comment). I asked Bishonen to remove the diff of Mr. Antz / Sayerslle calling me a fascist here. Rereading, I see Bishonen told me my request for removal was too complicated and blocked the LTA for 48 hours, then explained to him 48 hours later that he would be allowed to contribute to en.wp again shortly. In the end, I took the time away from contributing to the encyclopedia to track down the evidence necessary to make clear that it was yet another case of block evasion. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You sure you want to go the Arbcom route? I've been there before & it ain't smooth sailing. GoodDay (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No. I don't intend to file an ArbCom case against myself. However, if someone does, I think this thread demonstrates that a venue requiring evidence is necessary. ps: I had a look at the case you mentioned yesterday. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 09:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

And in summary ...

Close this and send it to ArbCom. One way or another, it is going to end up in ArbCom regardless. I think there is little to be gained in posting further. Britishfinance (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

As a procedural matter, this should be closed with a serious assessment of whatever the consensus might be. I've become as cynical as anyone else, but there is a community discussion here, the consensus is actually not self-evident, and everyone who has participated is entitled to have their views weighed appropriately. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Another RfC close review please? (Religion in Albania, lede infographic)

I'm sorry for having two of these open at the same time; it's because I've been going through the more contentious unclosed discussions on ANRFC. Anyway, a few hours ago I made this close, and an editor has indicated on my talk page that they feel my close was mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I will be delighted to self-revert. The complainant concurs with my determination that there's no consensus, but disputes my view that the status quo ante is the version without the disputed graphic.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I hope you don't mind me being blunt? And no criticism of that (or any other) close. But just file at RfA please: it'll be a piece of cake. All the best, ——Serial ^# 15:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Totally out of the question.—S Marshall T/C 16:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Endorse close The summary was an accurate reflection of the discussion. I had been looking into the same discussion and would have posted nearly the same one myself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Eggishorn: I agree with S Marshall's conclusion that none of the two sides of the dispute managed to reach consensus. I discussed with them on their talk page on what version of the article constitutes status quo ante. As I see things, the version with the pic in the lede is that version. After the pic was added to the lede, several months passed and, if I am not mistaken, some 30 edits were made on the article with nobody challenging that edit. Is not that counted as "silent consensus"? After "silent consensus", is not a new consensus needed to make a change? Those two questions are what I am not persuaded about in the RfC closure. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. What counts as longstanding text should ordinarily be determined by local consensus, where the level of activity of the article would be a key component in determining WP:SILENCE. Because this time the status quo ante was decided by the closer (which is to say, singularly), perhaps an explanation by them as to their respective determination to that effect is due. El_C 16:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ktrimi991:, might I suggest reviewing WP:CHALLENGECLOSE? The close was ... a reasonable summation of the discussion and the closer has no history that would make them involved in the discussion. If the close accurately summarized the discussion, even if that discussion was based on faulty premises, then the discussion is still closed. It is not up to the closer to correct the participants. Doing so results in a WP:Supervote. I can see your point about the sequence of events but I feel S Marshall also accurately summarized those in your challenge on their talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: I am aware of what is said on WP:CHALLENGE. I came here after the proposal to do so by S Marshall. I thanked him for his review process, and I have not asked him to correct any participant. The point I would like clarification about could probably be summarized this way: If I challenge an edit made 1 year ago, and after discussion there is no consenus, then the version I support should stay as a pre-dispute one? If that is the rationale applied, then one can easily remove content added years ago and those who disagree should not revert but just seek a "new consensus" on the talk page per WP:BRD. Is that the right way of action? Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, if one today decides to remove content that was added a year or several months ago, can we say that the dispute started a year or several months ago? Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Endorse. As the principal admin who has been attending to the article in question, I'd like to thank you, S Marshall, for once again taking on these difficult closes. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and I hope you keep up the good work. El_C 16:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse. The default position should be not to include contentious content. This was a brave close, in the proper sense of the term "brave". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: On what Wiki policy is your opinion that contentious content should not be kept on the article based on? Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

It's based on common sense, which is more important than any policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

"Common sense" can cause disputes rather than solve them in controversial Balkan topics. No wonder Balkan topics on Wikipedia have so many problems and conflicts. The rationale of that "common sense" implies that one can remove content from an article and they do not even need consensus because "contentious content" should not be on the article. I was aware of the fact that editors in general tend to support decisions such as RfC closures, but I expected some justification based on well-defined rules, not that kind of "common sense". It is no wonder then that Wiki has lost so many editors during the years. Anyways, I do not see any reason to further continue this discussion, as it has already become pointless. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• After reading all the input on this discussion, I do sympathize with Ktrimi991. The effect of the decision I made is to crystallize what Ktrimi991 feels is the wrong version of the article -- and I can see why, when I have sat the "stable version" such a long time in the past, this user might feel as if I've played a bit fast and loose with the rules.
  My position is that encyclopaedia-writers are educators, and that puts us under a basic duty not to mislead people. Properly analyzing sources is fundamental to what we do. In this case, independent and normally-reliable sources like the CIA World Factbook do seem to use the figures on this 2011 census -- but there are other, also independent and normally-reliable, sources that describe it as wildly inaccurate. We're dealing with research that's disputed, or even, suspect. In those circumstances, I took the view that the last "stable" version was the one that doesn't include an infographic based on the disputed research, and my view on that was certainly coloured by the possibility that the infographic is wrong.
  Please note that in doing so, I've backdated the last "stable" version well over a year from the start of the RfC. In that respect my decision was unusual, so Ktrimi991's outrage is understandable. We need to be fair, and although I'm grateful for all the "endorses" above, I do feel that some more careful, sober analysis from uninvolved editors is called for, and I'm completely open to being overturned if I was wrong.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I am very happy you reviewed the RfC. My major issue is not a pic in the lede of an article, as after all when one participates in a RfC is aware that their opinion might not "win", and that is just a pic that changes nothing. What I find disturbing is the way editors who edit difficult areas such as the Balkans are treated, and in what condition a good part of Wiki policies are. The major reason why topics such as the Balkans are a mess on Wiki is that the rules are not well-defined, have multiple interpretations, and the noticeboards that are supposed to help just leave the requests unanswered or give answers without citing any well-defined policy. It is the big picture that is a problem, not merely a single pic. Thanks again for reviewing the RfC, and hope we will have the opportunity to work together in other places on Wiki too. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say you're happy with this close review as-is, then? It's important that you feel you've had the chance to put your case and the decision has been reviewed in a fair manner.

The state of our policies and guidelines is poor and I once spent nearly a year fixing wording that implied the truth doesn't matter. And Wikipedian policies and guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine maze of rules you can find support for any position. I know that's unsatisfactory.

But the flip side of that is that the rules aren't really worth revising, unless we can come up with a Turing-complete set of rules that can't be gamed and don't require editorial discretion. If we can't then every decision is a judgment call, so we'll be inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary. I know how difficult this makes it if your field of interest is India-Pakistan, or homeopathy, or the Balkans. I just can't see how to fix it.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Good close. At the end of a well-participated discussion such as that, it is to be expected that some will be unhappy. Challenging the close is often a worse idea than reflecting on why your proposal didn't convince many other people. Asking for advice on how to proceed is always always better than making this sort of challenge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"Review" username spam accounts

Lately, I've been noticing a lot of new accounts with usernames containing the string "review", such as Derma Correct Skin Tag Removal ReviewTab2 (talk · contribs). That is the only example I have on hand, but there are others in the blocklist. One such account got globally locked for spam. Does anybody know whether these are human spammers or automated spambots, and what is the cause of this account creation pattern? Thanks, Passengerpigeon (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Fresh Flora Review 1 (talk · contribs)
• My Lottery Loopholes Review (talk · contribs)
• My Lottery Loopholes Review Tab3 (talk · contribs)
• Derma Correct Skin Tag Removal Review (talk · contribs)

With these types of accounts, it's difficult to say if it's a human spammer or some other kind of spammer. Needless to say not much thought is involved. Not much a CU can do, BTW. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Results of earlier RfC not acknowledged or heeded

A series of misunderstandings and distractions has led everyone at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries to miss the results of a March RfC where the closer said that, although the RfC was "too messy to be completely certain", there was consensus regarding Part B of the RfC to include in the infobox all candidates who had either earned a delegate or 5% of the vote. A close read (summarized here) of the votes and comments there shows that 19 of 22 voters held that view.

The result of that RfC should have been honored when closed on May 22, but a now-banned a sockpuppet's introduction of contemporaneous and subsequent (and poorly-worded) RfCs have distracted and sown confusion even among well-intended actors. My last responses to such a well-intended actor (the proposer of an as-yet another RfC who hasn't recognized that the new one effectively duplicates the earlier good RfC) are here on the article talk page and here on that user's talk page. (The driving issue is not with this latter editor but rather with the confusion sown by the sockpuppet.)

As the page has been subject to too many edit wars, I am requesting help here. Can someone please revert the infobox template to my last revision? Humanengr (talk) 07:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

[Update] I’ve convinced the proposer of the ongoing RfC to request a close. In that request, however, the proposer mischaracterized the request as “due to the highly controversial nature of the topic and multiple inconclusive past RfCs.” That is indicative of the confusion I’ve described. It is not controversial (only a small minority of editors object); in the current RfC, all votes were for including candidates who had earned a delegate; the one material RfC was clearly decided but the result was ignored; the others were distractions. Humanengr (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

AWB requests need attention

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

---

Note: I may be a bit biased, as half the requests there are mine. However, could the admins look at the requests there? While they’re at it, they could probably take a quick look at the other permissions... Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• User:Total Eclipse 2017, if you can't even be bothered to provide a proper link to the place where you made a request only yesterday, then I don't think you can be trusted with advanced tools such as AWB. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: Okay then. Here’s the link: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser, though I must admit I thought you guys knew where it was already. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Due to recent misuse of multiple accounts, Therapyisgood (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted to editing with one account.

Support: Joe Roe, Maxim, SoWhy, Casliber, Bradv, Beeblebrox

Oppose:

Recuse:

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Account restriction (User:Therapyisgood)

Proposal concerning WP:OUTING / Appeals

I've entered a proposal to update the outing process on Wikipedia to allow for appeals where it concerns outing. Feel free to add your voice Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_update_the_Outing_procedure_to_allow_for_appeals Necromonger...Arbs were wrong, Resysop BHG! 01:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A new sockpuppet of banned sockpuppeteer editing and edit warring on political pages

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

---

The new sock of Peterjack1 is 108.14.43.250, starting 6/17. The prior sock, Smith0124 was blocked on 6/12. Since returning, they have edited (inc. edit warring) ~60 presidential and gubernatorial election pages. After the Smith0124 ban, I posted a list of the > 250 election/political pages they edited under that guise, seeking help in reviewing. That it's the same editor is evidenced here: this edit by Smith0124 == this edit by 108.14.43.250.

I reported the 108.14.43.250 sock here, but am posting here in hopes of quicker response. It looks like this will be a recurring problem. Thx Humanengr (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Edit of concern

To be as brief as possible, could an admin review this edit which I quickly reverted? I am quite concerned, thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the revision and have notified the WMF about the concern. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks! Jusdafax (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Legacy Visual

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

I removed TPA for Legacy Visual due to a series of off-topic misogynist posts. If anyone thinks that's unnecessary, feel free to reverse. Guy (help!) 12:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly looking at their edit history, and the recent ANI thread, an indef for WP:NOTHERE may have warranted. Adding those replies that caused the TPA revoke, I'm inclined to do so now. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've seen that editor before. I just went over many of their edits again--they're definitely NOTHERE, except to argue a political point, and even that they're doing ineptly. I dropped the NOTHERE block, and I think the template restored TPA--but since this is an indefinite block the situation is a bit different and they might sing a different tune. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll keep an eye out. Thanks. Guy (help!) 14:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Made mistake in moving article

I wanted to move the Nahal Hermon article to its english name Banias River, but it didn't work because the redirect already existed, so I changed the redirect to the article and made Nahal Hermon a redirect, the problem now is that the history of the article is now at the redirect. I probably should not have done this. Can some admin please properly move the Nahal Hermon redirect to the Banias River name? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Supreme Deliciousness. I think I covered this for you (Let me know if there is something further, or I made a mistake). In future, see WP:RMT for page moves where there is a redirect at the target and it has more than one edit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You will need to cleanup the lede due to the page move though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, It should not have been moved. The common name is Nahal Hermon, not Banias River. WP:COMMON applies. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Sir Joseph - I simply fixed the copy-paste move. I have no ties to the article. If it needs/should be reverted, I suggest that this should be discussed with Supreme Deliciousness. Although I agree this probably isn't a non-controversial move. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, you're an admin, you should have reverted and put it back to what it was and told Supreme Deliciousness that a controversial move should be discussed first. I'm a page-move and I know that a page move that is controversial should not be done without discussion. This is not his first time at the rodeo. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski, Please move it back to original title if there is any objection that I will do the move my self? Shrike (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I have moved the pages back to the prior locations. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee, you picked the very worst of the options to mollify objections of process but not substance, but no worries will go through the normal process here. nableezy - 19:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I've treated this the same as an opposed technical move. If a RM is inevitable, then it should come from the more stable name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

block user:A.B.Siddiki

Please block user:A.B.Siddiki, sock puppet of User:Prince Shobuz aka User:Abu Bakkar Siddiki (Shobuz). Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

You can file a report on WP:SPI if you really think that this is a sockpuppet and you will get better response there. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Shashank5988, আফতাবুজ্জামান is a CheckUser on bn.wiki. Admins here can block based on their comments if it matches. আফতাবুজ্জামান, you might get a quicker response via email to checkuser-l. I’ll block here, though :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In April, the Arbitration Committee privately warned Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that his use of the CheckUser tool had been contrary to local and global policies prohibiting checking accounts where there is insufficient evidence to suspect abusive sockpuppetry ("fishing"). The committee additionally imposed specific restrictions on Bbb23's use of the CheckUser tool in ambiguous cases otherwise considered to be within the discretion of individual CheckUsers. Bbb23 has subsequently communicated to the committee that he is unwilling to comply with these restrictions, continued to run similar questionable checks, and refused to explain these checks on request. Accordingly, Bbb23's CheckUser access is revoked.

Support: Joe Roe, Bradv, Beeblebrox, Maxim, David Fuchs, xeno, Worm That Turned, SoWhy, Casliber, Newyorkbrad, DGG

Oppose:

Recuse: KrakatoaKatie

Inactive: GorillaWarfare, Mkdw

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Revocation of CheckUser access for Bbb23

Technical question about what kind of blocks are possible.

Re: Wikipedia:Help desk#Can I block a user or IP from leaving messages on my talk page? could our new "block from editing individual pages" ability could be used to block that IP from editing that talk page? Assuming that it is possible, would it be desirable? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should be using partial blocks of that nature without some formal dispute resolution (likely at AN or ANI), simply "please don't post on my page" isn't exactly an "enforceable IBAN", as has been demonstrated by unregistered and registered users time and time again. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Worst case is that you get your talkpage temp. protected for a while. Speaking of what is possible, it would be great if you could partially block an IP range from editing a group of pages in a given category. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech answers only: @Guy Macon: yes, a block can be placed against a user/ip/ip range that would prohibit editing only a specific page, and that could be a user talk page. @Lugnuts: Category blocks were declined in general (c.f. phab:T190349) as they would allow non-admins to extend the block by adding the blocked category places. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks xaosflux. Shame that can't be done (at the present)! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Protecting 2020 China-India skirmishes

About two times the request has been made on WP:RFPP for WP:ECP, however both times they were rejected by admin Woody[64][65] and his actions were indeed made in good faith. Nonetheless the page should be ECP already due to disruption (not vandalism) by inexperienced editors and the subject is really contentious. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My reasoning in the decline is available here and still seems to stand. We don't normally protect articles because they are busy. It didn't seem to meet the normal interpretation of disruptive at that time. Please discuss your issues on the talk page. I notice there are a number of discussion requests that haven't been answered. Having discussions in edit summaries doesn't count. As always, I have absolutely no qualms with any other admin protecting. Woody (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I went through the article...last 500 edits or so., and I concur with my colleague above. Semi-protection is enough imho, ECP-protection should only be used when semi-protection has been proven to be inadequate; we are not at this point yet. Lectonar (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Tumbleman specialist to the bridge please

I reverted an edit by an IP to Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) earlier, and I was puzzled because I knew it to have been permanently semiprotected due to, as far as I recall, Tumbleman socks (this is one of Tumbleman's focus topics, here and off-wiki). Turns out that the article was temporarily fully protected in Feb and of course when that expired, it went back to no protection. I restored SPROT for now, as the status quo ante as it were, but can anyone familiar with Tumbleman please say if this is still needed? I think Tumbleman is still active, certainly he is still active and bitching about us off-wiki. Maybe ECP would be better? Does someone want to do that? Guy (help!) 11:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

ECP should only be applied if and/or when semi proves inadequate. El_C 12:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, I like ECP because it allows IPs to edit, but removes isues of bonkers content being visible to the reader. Guy (help!) 13:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy, I think you might be conflating pending changes (WP:PC) with extended-confirmed protection (WP:ECP). El_C 13:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

El C, d'oh. That is what I meant, of course. Thank you. Guy (help!) 14:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if Tumbleman is involved, but there has been a recent and apparently off-wiki coordinated or solicited effort to modify Sheldrake's article. Most of the active participants are either autoconfirmed or ECP-confirmed but they have been sticking to talk pages and not edit-warring. So they aren't a concern and even ECP wouldn't do anything anyway. PC would likely be enough to catch evaders. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

"a recent and apparently off-wiki coordinated or solicited effort to modify Sheldrake's article". Do you have evidence for this? There are significant problems with the article, but nothing that any sort of protection would help remedy. The issues are essentially content disputes and there has been no edit warring. PC or SP are not needed here. Arcturus (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Arcturus, what, apart from the fact that everyone is asking the same thing, with pretty much the same arguments? Guy (help!) 20:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Aha, I see this has been on Gary Null's show recently. That may go some way towards explaining the observed facts. Presumably we can also expect some of Null's fans at his article. Guy (help!) 13:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Derek Chauvin

Please delete these revisions [66]. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Revdel'ed. Thanks for the ping. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reply - @MelanieN:, please delete [67] as well. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done (on MelanieN’s behalf). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Attention needed at edit warring noticeboard

Hello, There are several reports that are becoming stale (including one I made, despite ongoing issues), and newer reports are being answered before older ones. Could one or more admins please attend to the backlog? Thanks. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @Tartan357: If newer reports are being treated over older reports, that generally indicates that the patrolling admin(s) have chosedn not to action them, for a variety of reasons. Regarding your filing, for example—presumably the one your driven to comment by—is probably seen as too multi-faceted for ANEW: they like things simple there, on the whole, and your case would probably be better suited at AN/I, as it involves a number of different behavioral / policy issues rathern than simply edit-warring. YMMV of course (as might theirs). ——Serial ^# 18:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Are you sure? It may appear complex on its surface, but the editor made the same edit (changing the picture) across multiple pages in the same series, so it seems pretty straightforward to me. And there are many other requests above mine that haven’t been answered, as well. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 18:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not sure  :) no, carry on, you might get a result: just that you mentioned something that I've often though about too. ——Serial ^# 18:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if the practice of "reviewing admins not commenting = decline" is a valuable one. --Izno (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think it is; thankfully, they got to my report, though. But I find the practice of ignoring reports and answering them out out of order frustrating since they’re automatically archived after 48 hours. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 22:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Izno, if there are no new diffs after 48h, I think we should default to "no action" (see below). I have seen several where the report was basically trying to get the other party in a dispute sanctioned out of the way, with non actual violation, but it took a long time to work it out. Guy (help!) 08:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I'm not questioning how they should close in that case (I'm not sure I agree with you but that's not my main interest). I'm questioning whether admins should make a comment, even if it's just to say "I don't see an issue". This would help admins get to a consensus in hard/non-obvious cases and make the easy cases obvious to anyone onlooking. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Izno, maybe, but WP:NOTBURO and often I say nothing because it seems to need specific domain knowledge. Guy (help!) 13:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129, yes, after 48h an ANEW report could probably be NACd by an uninvolved editor as "no action". Normally these are left because the issue is not obvious or because it has stopped. Guy (help!) 08:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

Hi, There is backlog from Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 27 March 2020 to Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons as of 10 June 2020. If any admin have time clearing this then it would be great. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I have removed some of these (and done so in the past) but it's time consuming if you check that the files genuinely are there and identical. Is it necessary to do that? Or are the bots close to foolproof? If they work well, maybe we could get an adminbot. Guy (help!) 08:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A bot can't do this task, because a non-trivial number of the files should not be on Wikipedia or the Commons either, because the person who uploaded it is not the copyright holder, or it's not clear that the stated license is the correct one, or other such issues.— Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

This backlog was also noted recently at WT:CSD#Backlog of local copies tagged for deletion per F8. --Izno (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A Question About Having an Account Created

My friend asked me to check on how long it takes for account requests to be answered. They asked for an account three weeks ago and still haven't heard anything so they were wondering. If you could reply to them at (Redacted), they and I would really appreciate it. (They wanted the name Lugia1988.) Thanks! Sianna Ann (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Advise given on Sianna Ann's talk page. El_C 19:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Waterwizardm and NOTHERE

• Waterwizardm (talk · contribs)

Part of me just wants to disengage from them, which I have, but another part of me would like to see them at least warned to take their WP:FRINGE theory elsewhere. I admit it is tempting to continue debating them but I shall no longer contravene NOTAFORUM myself. @David Eppstein:. I would just like other eyes on this situation because I believe my further contribution to it would serve no purpose.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

They have been told to take their fringe theory elsewhere, repeatedly, in Talk:P versus NP problem. At least they migrated from article space to article talk space to (now) their own user talk space, but I don't see any evidence that they are giving up their crank views or their desire to push those views into Wikipedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Looks like no other admins are interested in this. I'll escalate further if they post further screeds.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

They haven't edited article space since 6 June. But if they resume, let me know and I might be able to do something. They already received an admin warning on their talk page about WP:Original research. Any continuation might be blockable as WP:DE if they get lots of pushback and are clearly not paying attention. EdJohnston (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston and David Eppstein: [68] I am not convinced they understand that their user talk page isn't a place where they can keep on this nonsense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Scunthorpe problem

Resolved

 – Whitelisted by Dirk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to add a link to the European STAMP workshop (an industry/academic conference about the STAMP accident analysis methodology, https:// www.stamp-workshop.eu/about-stamp/ ), to Nancy Leveson's biography, and encountering a Scunthorpe problem: an edit filter is rejecting the url because it contains the substring "shop.eu". Can someone help with this? Easiest way might be for an admin to just add this link to the external links section of the article. I think I can then move the link into the article text without hitting the filter again, since I would no longer be adding a new link. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

WT:WHITELIST may be what you want. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What Gråbergs Gråa Sång said. That way if it gets reverted out, you don't need an admin to put it back in, etc etc etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

What a pain, I wonder if there is a way to fix the filter. Unfortunately the error message doesn't identify what filter it is that blocked the edit, since I wanted to check how often the filter actually triggers, though chances are it's one filter for multiple patterns. shop.eu spamming is probably rare enough that it can be handled by xlinkbot instead of a filter. Anyway I'll see about whitelisting. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

And wait, will whitelisting even help? The substring is not in the mediawiki spam blacklist, that the whitelist counteracts. It's being stopped by an edit filter, which is different. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you had an account, you would be able to see the spam blacklist being hit. The entry is at m:Spam blacklist (listed as "shop\.eu\b"). Also, for the record, even admins can't add blacklisted links. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

You are right, it does say blacklist in the error box. Not sure why I thought it was an EF. Thanks. Can you see how often that blacklist item is triggered? And it's crazy that admins can't bypass the BL. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I have whitelisted the link, basically a false positive on an intentionally wide rule after large attacks of XXXshop.eu spam. Sorry for the delay, I had to see the records first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Have written an article in Kannada script.

I have written an article on renowned Kavita Krishnamurthy in Kannada language using Kannada script. Shall I publish it? Is there a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinadMysuru (talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

@NinadMysuru: This is the English Wikipedia site. Topics can be from any culture or place, as long as they comply with our usual policies, but the articles themselves need to be written in English. There is a Kannada Wikipedia for articles written in that language. DMacks (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! Help me how can I publish? Where can I publish? Can you share the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NinadMysuru (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

NinadMysuru, I have no idea of the rules of Kannada Wikipedia, but you find it here: [69]. Ask there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Seongyunhong12345

This user is in a difficult position at their workplace. They have been instructed to create an article for their employer. That employer fails WP:CORP. They have requested a brief block to get them out from under their management's disapproval. See User talk:Seongyunhong12345#Healthynox_Corporation Please will a friendly Admin help them out? Fiddle Faddle 14:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

They indicate that blocking their VPN would be preferable, even for a month. I doubt that remedy is available without serious discussion Fiddle Faddle 14:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

They also say it's their 2nd account and an earlier one was banned, and that someone else will recreate the article (not a threat, just saying that they won't). You really need to read the talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I've located and reported as socks two linked users here. All I can tell, and especially using WP:AGF is that this seems to be a young intern in a deep mess, potentially being bullied at work. And they are not even paid! Fiddle Faddle 16:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I note that this corporation claims to provide "a mental health platform created for institutions that want to see their people thrive". I can't think of a worse way for any institution to see their people thrive than insisting that they do the impossible. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Irony appears lost on them. I have no ability to help except by words. Please will someone use the right size hammer? Fiddle Faddle 16:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

An admin should do what normal protocol requires. I think salting is appropriate since the company wants it so bad, but I'm not commenting on the right admin action. The user will have to gain their own respect at work. That's called growing up. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the draft as WP:G5 and salted the draft and article space pages since it's pretty obvious someone from that company will try and recreate them again. In case it becomes notable in the future, I've applied semi-creation protection so autoconfirmed accounts can create it. I've also courtesy blanked the user's talk page. Between that and User:Ad Orientem's block, I think that's the extent of what we can do for them. A checkuser might be able to block the underlying VPN but my knowledge of the proxy policy is limited. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughts and actions of those who looked at and helped with this. Fiddle Faddle 22:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Note - There's another draft of the same company at Draft:Healthynox, this was created a couple of weeks ago by a different user Pi (Talk to me!) 20:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Tagged for speedy. Would someone mind adding Healthynox to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? Thank you. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Telling users not to edit?

Every once in a while, I see somebody post something to a user's talk page along the lines of, "Please tell me if you have a COI, socking relationship, were hired by, etc, some other person. Do not continue to edit until you answer this question." Is there any policy which covers such a request? It seems like my authority as an admin is to block somebody for cause, but if I'm not going to do that, then I don't see how I can give them a cease-and-desist order. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It's built into the warning template, likely based on the TOU under WP:PAID and Meta:Paid editing. Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Which template, specifically? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

template:uw-paid1 Praxidicae (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There are other templates available; I use {{uw-coi}}. Both it and {{welcome-coi}} address editors who may have a conflict of interest, and include information on disclosing editing for pay. I might use {{uw-paid1}} as an escalation if the editor continued without responding to uw-coi, but I'd probably look for an admin familiar with the area or go to a noticeboard instead. (Non-administrator comment) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, Thanks. So, it looks like that language was added in this edit by Fuhghettaboutit and discussed here. I am a little concerned about Primefac's assertion that failure to respond is a blockable offense. If you want to block somebody for UPE, I'm fine with that. But, blocking somebody for failing to respond to a question that no policy obligates them to respond to, seems dubious at best. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I have yet to see a block for *not* responding. It's always UPE but I am probably in the minority that thinks that failing to communicate is a blockable offense and inherently incompatible with Wikipedia regardless of whether it's related to UPE or general editing. Praxidicae (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Praxidicae, you are not the only one. I block per WP:COMMUNICATE (an extension WP:CIR, as far as I'm concerned) often. El_C 20:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've actually imposed such a block myself, but I think that it is an acceptable reason for a block, especially when the unblock conditions of responding to the disclosure request are so simple to comply with. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, it usually had to do with stonewalling repeated queries and notices which, again, pertains to disputes. El_C 21:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, I guess this is a US-centric point of view, but I grew up in the days of Miranda being a new thing. So, I've got the idea of requiring somebody to answer a question (and/or using their silence as evidence of wrongdoing) pretty much seared into my brain as bad things. I know, enwiki isn't just the US, and we're not a court of law, and a few other things, but it still feels wrong to tell somebody, "You're not allowed to edit until you answer my question". But, OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, I think it should be understood as stonewalling while in dispute, and continuing in this or that dispute, without ever bothering to communicate. El_C 21:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, I think there's a pretty big difference between what is reasonable to expect from a police officer and legal system that can impose fines, long-term imprisonment or death vs. what is reasonable to expect from a community of volunteers where the most severe penalty is being barred from participation (and where such penalties can be painlessly reversed). I think that a more equitable (if still imperfect) offline comparison would be a cashier asking you if you're of age before selling you alcohol. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I also said that an editor is not obligated to respond. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course, circumstances dictate when to invoke WP:COMMUNICATE/WP:CIR — which is in the realm of disputes. El_C 21:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there's been some conflation of COI and PAID. Something like an umdisclosed COI or relationship is less blockable, and isn't specifically disallowed by TOU, so this type of message may be less than appropriate in some cases. I think this type of "do no edit" message should only be used where a block is policy compliant. If RoySmith has a specific recent example in mind, which they may or may not, I think this may not have been appropriate message. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, Well, there's a specific example which triggered my starting this thread, but I'm more interested in the general question (and don't wish to put anybody in particular on the spot), so, I'm not going to point it out. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said I think it's only appropriate when a block is appropriate, much as you explained in your original question. The only times I've ever used a "do not edit" statement is for username issues. There are other specific warnings, like "don't revert again", but "you must tell me if you have a relationship" isn't (always) a strong policy requirement. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• So, here's another example, from a couple of years ago, which I just noticed because it's related to a current SPI. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• General answer, unrelated to "another example from a couple of years ago" — it seems reasonable to block if the user ignores the note and continues editing in the suspicious manner. In other words, it looks like you're breaking our rules, so please stop and help me understand why you think this is all right, but if you keep it up, we'll use technical measures to stop you. But if the user ignores the note and edits completely appropriately in a different area, I don't see any reason to sanction the editor; the user who looks like he's spamming for bitcoin-competitors, is warned, and then goes off to improve articles about mathematical topology is a welcome addition, and there's no good reason in my mind to sanction him if he doesn't cause other problems. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

So I've actually used almost that exact warning several times in the last few weeks (and I'm thinking RoySmith might have me in mind here). If I'm pulling that out, it usually means that I have strong reason to suspect that two accounts are connected/someone is being paid/etc. (basically, something very blockable is afoot) but there's enough wiggle room that I'm taking a last shot at AGF. If they deny it I'll generally acknowledge and move on with my life, if they confirm it, I'll give them a warning about whatever it was (declare your COI, declare your sock, etc.), and if they ignore the message and keep doing (suspicious behavior) I will block on suspicion of (whatever). And yeah, I basically lifted the warning from the UPE template. If people feel that that style of warning is not appropriate or otherwise is an overreach, just say the word and I'll stop. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive user User:NelsonTrafalgar

This new user has been consistently removing text with a valid source from the article: Goals Soccer Centres.

Examples here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goals_Soccer_Centres&diff=963655261&oldid=963557811 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goals_Soccer_Centres&diff=963553704&oldid=961866724 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goals_Soccer_Centres&diff=959761288&oldid=959560986

The user may possibly be a connection of people as the material being removed.

81.110.21.11 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Would someone please issue this user a {{uw-ewblock}}? He's not to 3RR yet, but five of his six edits (three of which are in the last day or so) have consisted of removing content from this article. I'd do it, but I'm on my public-computer sock. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nyttend Gave him a partial for a week for the edit warring.

Any admin is free to increase the block severity if they wish. The edits smell like PAID/COI. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sockery

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 doubt an SPI will be needed to prove that @AndersonL7333: is a sock of banned @Lennox Theodore Anderson:. That duck is really quacking. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 22

I am not sure, but have I doubled the AfD of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ishirō Honda filmography in the list? Govvy (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Fixed. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, don't know if I made any other mistakes on it. Hope it's all okay. Thanks. Govvy (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of rollback

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

---

I have taken the decision to leave the project permanently. As a result I ask that rollback is removed from my account. IWI (chat) 12:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remove PC as well. Thank you, IWI (chat) 12:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Repeal on the topic ban

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

---

Can I be given a chance or anything because the topic ban invloves religion , pakistan and india which are my primary edits I have never made disruptive edits in pakistan or india related wiki articles in the past few mo nths from memories and for religion topic I agree which I did as with the whole madudi incidentwere I called him a pedofile but I don't agree with the whole topic ban in the first place I would like to be given a chance .Arsi786 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2020

You were literally just topic banned today, less than three hours ago. It is far, far too soon for you to contest your topic ban. It's also really concerning that you say you never made disruptive edits. The community consensus was that your edits were so disruptive as to warrant a topic ban. Please build up a history of edits in other subject areas. It's much too soon to contest your topic ban and this thread should be WP:SNOW closed. --Yamla (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Sorry you misunderstood me I said on topics relating to india and pakistan I do admit to the religion one which I did do and I will try to bulid edits up bu I was hoping the topic ban revolved around religion rather than pakistan and india .Arsi786 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2020

I'm not convinced by this ban. I was looking earlier. Some of the disputed edits are different ways of reading the same source, and others are arguably the result of communicating in a second language. A narrower restriction may be more equitable. Guy (help!) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to answer your response to my support of this ban, but I will point out that this diff - where you purposefully re-added unsourced information with a 9-month-old CN tag, and then defended it by pointing to the other editor's lack of explanation - fails the most basic understanding of verifability. You were already given "a chance" - many, in fact, judging by the dozen warnings on your talk page and your defense of the actions that got you topic-banned. —{CrypticCanadian} 01:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Crypticcanadian: Most of the incidents on my talk page got to do with edit warrings in which is not relevant here but I do agree I should talk more on the talk page. Like I said before please go through that edit history that user was reverting a lot and I don't have roll back rights so I had to individually revert one by one and its weird that you chose this edit to make a point I clearly could care less what seraiki are considered because if I did I would still be putting that information back when its not the case even after me someone reverted all his edits.Arsi786 (talk) 2:23,18 June 2020

Needs to be dealt with so please stop removing my appeal whoever is doing it. Arsi786 (talk) 1:50, 23 June 2020

No, it does not have to be dealt with. You've gotten your answer. Come back after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, say 3 - 6 months, to make an appeal, it is not going to be dealt with now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Arsi786: Above, user:JzG (Guy) said I'm not convinced by this ban. I was looking earlier. Some of the disputed edits are different ways of reading the same source, and others are arguably the result of communicating in a second language. A narrower restriction may be more equitable. This is your meal ticket. If, and pretty much only if, you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were misrepresented (using diffs of course), you might have a shot at getting this reviewed. Otherwise, walk it off and wait 6-9 months before ever bringing this up again. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank You I will just do that.Arsi786 (talk) 08:19,23 June 2020

The only reason I even got called to ANI was was with calling madudi a pedophile which I will agree I was in the wrong but I don't deserve a topic ban on pakistan/india topics and even on religion just for that. Even the other edits I was called out on I had already answered them but still I got a topic ban below is the whole archived discusstion even the people who supported me getting topic banned were all over the place for example from the user the hands that feed you entirely misunderstood my point and said I would still carry on with the disruptive edidts hich I did not even say:

   Support topic ban. The above comments just show Arsi is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, regardless of what it takes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

       Well I can stop if that's a option I don't think I deserved to be banned.Arsi786 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2020

and from the user 1292 simon who also misunderstood what I said:

   Support topic or perhaps greater ban - Arsi786 has already broken their promise on 9 June with the following edits of religious articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Promising to play nice to avoid a ban is WP:GAMING IMHO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

       My promise was I wouldn't make edits like the ones I made on maududi what's wrong with the edits I made now did I lie now? You yourselves can check the references given in the turkey one if your accusing me of disruptive edits and don't acuse me of things that I didn't even say. Arsi786 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2020

           TimothyBlue's offer of giving you another chance was based on "voluntarily stop editing articles related to India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism". Are you saying that your reply of "sorry I meant If you gave me another chance I won't do things like this" was actually rejecting this offer?? (this is a simple Yes or No question) 1292simon (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

               The issue was witj madudi not my other edits that I am being accused of I have already explained myself in regards to elikos accusations my issue Is I dont deserve a topic ban just because of what I said about madudi Arsi786 (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2020

And from cryptic canadian whose discusstion still carried on as you can above:

   Support - Edits like this and this don't convince me that this editor isn't POV-pushing. —{CrypticCanadian} 01:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

       If you look at all the edit history I was adding back all the things he was getting rid for no explaination why would you only bring this part up also I was the one who put christianity for chechens up there as the wiki article said there are 2% christian minority in kazakhstan out of the total chechens in kazakhstan but unknown amount in there native chechyna.Arsi786 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2020

Here is the full archived discusston:

The whole topic ban discussion. ——Serial # 08:49, 23 June 2020 (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. I have been watching editing of Arsi786 for sometime and there are issues that should be addressed because warnings have certainly not worked. Problems include misrepresentation of sources,[70] edit warring,[71][72] removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries,[73] unexplained POV changes,[74] and extraordinarily outrageous edits like this. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC) I have suppressed the last of those, as it accused the subject of a serious crime without evidence; adding that is almost sanction-worthy in and of itself. I do not have the time to investigate the other issues. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC) The edits warring have been dealt with and the madudi one was not a edit warring as I stopped. Arsi786 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC) I have been also watching the editing of Arsi786 and have observed that his editing is problematic in that it includes POV pushing, blanking any mention of minorities among predominantly Muslim nations or ethnic groups, reducing figures of Muslim apostates or Cultural Muslims, misrepresenting sources and edit warring. I will try to explain all these in the next paragraph: In this edit [75] and here again [76], he reduces the percentage of those raised Muslim who no longer embrace Islam in adulthood to from 32 to 22, even though the source clearly cited data from the General Social Survey in the United States which shows that 32 percent of those raised Muslim no longer embrace Islam in adulthood, and 18 percent hold no religious identification. Another example of misrepresentation of sources is here [77], where the Pew source cited that the percentage Sunni Muslims in Morocco is 67% not 70% [78]. Another example is here [79], where he changes the percentage of Muslims form 89.1% to 90.39%, when the given source mentions that the percentage is 89.1%. Instead of changing the source to reflect his new edit or going to the talk page, he just started edit warring. Another example is here [80], where he changed the information claiming that "the changes he made reflect the source" page 59, even though his new edit reflects page 58, but instead of keeping both statistics, he removed the first one. Another example is here [81], where Arsi786 claims that his edit reflects the source and that "97% Javanese follow orthodox Islamic traditions", and it's not true; the source mentions that "97.3 per cent of these are officially Muslim", but "Only 5-10 per cent follow Agami Islam Santri". The Agami Islam Santri category is what is considered to be the "Orthodox Islam", while the other practices are syncretism with local beliefs along with Islam. Another example is here [82], in which Arsi786 reduces the Iranian diaspora from 1 to 2 million, though the tree estimates them as 2 to 4 million; check here for example, so Arsi786 made the change based on what? In this edit [83], he removed the Roman Catholic minority from ethnic group's box, claiming that "Roman catholic faith is not in the references given", even though the two references given (here and here) clearly mention the Roman Catholic minority. The same problems can be found here [84], where he removed mention of Hindus and Sikhs in the infobox without providing edit summaries. Another example is here [85], where he remove Christianity from the infobox even though, inside the article it is mentioned that "Most Gambians living in the United States are Muslim or Christian". His removal of sourced content without providing edit summaries can be found in several places: [86], [87], [88], [89]. Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC) And these are just few examples of his problematic edits. I'm not going even to start discussing his edit warring behaviour. Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC) 1.The reference given can't even be seen you have to pay to go to the article while pew did a study saying its 22% https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/26/the-share-of-americans-who-leave-islam-is-offset-by-those-who-become-muslim/ 2. This is sectarian division among moroccan muslims those 30% said they are just muslim 67% identified as sunni muslim while 3% didn't leave a reply according to pew so what's the problem here exactly I combined both of them together. 3. The official bangladesh census wrote it was 90% but you chose to replace those figures from a usa cia estimation factbook site. 4. Funny the original one was false which I corrected but I agree I should of read it more correctly. 5. You're just bring nickpicky. 6. Did you even bother to check the source it doesnt give the figure of 3 or 4 million but between 1 to 2 million mainly in the usa. 7.My bad I agree I didnt read the sources given at first I assumed you were lying its true 1% of iraqi turkmen Identify as christians. The pashtun one was already dealt with in the talk page the issue always comes back up they aren't considered as ethnic pashtuns. Gambia is a muslim dominated country there was no references given pf its diaspora in america having christians now. 8. Edit 127 was fixing the spelling mistakes so I just left it. Edit 128 was the same to fix spelling mistakes while the inheritance part in the quran is only half of her brothers not all men quran.com/4/11 which I corrected. The hanafi part was not true as many hanafi dominated countries allow women to divorce for other reasons not just for those reasons given. Edit 129 was from a biased source it was not a credible study. Edit 130 if you bothered to look at futher edits made afterwards we discussed it and he brought actual relevent information in which I left. Just because I didnt leave edit summaries doesnt mean I deserve to get banned. Arsi786 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2020 Topic Ban for Arsi 786 on India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism articles Support. Arsi786 has misrepresented sources to push a POV across ethnic groups, especially in relation to India-Pakistan articles and religious statistics regarding ethnic groups. If there is no objection to a community ban for his vandalism of the project (for example, replacing "jurist" with "pedophile" [90]), I would support that too.Eliko007 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC) I disagree its a extreme to do a total ban and if you have read the works of madudi he allows and advocates for men to be allowed to marry and consummate the marriage with girls who haven't reached puberty in his exegesis of the quran while traditional scholars were against sleeping with girls that haven't reached puberty so his basic pedophile Madudi exegesis https://www.searchtruth.com/tafsir/tafsir.php?chapter=65. View of traditional scholars https://www.islamweb.net/en/fatwa/84343/the-prophets-sallallaahu-alayhi-wa-sallam-marriage-to-aaishah-may-allaah-be-pleased-with-her Arsi786 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2020 I am confident that you still don't understand WP:OR. Your explanations to above diffs are not convincing. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC) The example above display how perverted and pedophilic he was it was unsourced and it was original research.Arsi786 (talk) 9:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Support topic ban. The above comments just show Arsi is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, regardless of what it takes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC) Well I can stop if that's a option I don't think I deserved to be banned.Arsi786 (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2020 Question for @Arsi786: is the above an offer to voluntarily stop editing articles related to India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism and move on to editing in other areas? If this is the case I believe this would resolve the issue and give the editor a chance to contribute constructively without the blemish of a topic ban.   // Timothy :: talk  00:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC) No sorry I meant If you gave me another chance I won't do things like this I don't think I deserve to get a topic ban.Arsi786 (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020 This case needs to be closed by a sysop. Eliko007 (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Support topic or perhaps greater ban - Arsi786 has already broken their promise on 9 June with the following edits of religious articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Promising to play nice to avoid a ban is WP:GAMING IMHO. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC) My promise was I wouldn't make edits like the ones I made on maududi what's wrong with the edits I made now did I lie now? You yourselves can check the references given in the turkey one if your accusing me of disruptive edits and don't acuse me of things that I didn't even say. Arsi786 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2020 TimothyBlue's offer of giving you another chance was based on "voluntarily stop editing articles related to India-Pakistan and Religion-Atheism". Are you saying that your reply of "sorry I meant If you gave me another chance I won't do things like this" was actually rejecting this offer?? (this is a simple Yes or No question) 1292simon (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC) The issue was witj madudi not my other edits that I am being accused of I have already explained myself in regards to elikos accusations my issue Is I dont deserve a topic ban just because of what I said about madudi Arsi786 (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2020 Support topic ban Even though this edit was enough for initiating an indef block, I would still think that topic ban should work for now given the complete failure to address any issues which I had raised above. Shashank5988 (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC) Are you serious I promised I won't make such edits again like the ones in madudi just to make myself more clear. Arsi786 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2020 @Arsi786: Please stop responding to every !vote. Read WP:Bludgeon. Also, if you do respond, please indent your responses properly, one additional colon (:) than the comment you're respondning to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC) This case needs to be closed by a sysop.Eliko007 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC) Support - Edits like this and this don't convince me that this editor isn't POV-pushing. —{CrypticCanadian} 01:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC) If you look at all the edit history I was adding back all the things he was getting rid for no explaination why would you only bring this part up also I was the one who put christianity for chechens up there as the wiki article said there are 2% christian minority in kazakhstan out of the total chechens in kazakhstan but unknown amount in there native chechyna.Arsi786 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2020 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.

As you can see from the discusstion with the elios user I answered every accusation he confronted about me only one was correct which was the iraqi turkmen one which I did stop reverting the edits after I had seeen the source I honestly don't see why I got a topic ban on pakistan/india on religion makes sense as what I sad about madudi but even then I don't think I desereve a topic on religion and I do have problems with edit warrings but thats a entirely other issue that I will move away from. Arsi786 (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2020

Arsi786 I say this with nothing but goodwill towards you: the best thing you can do now is to discontinue this discussion. I know you disagree with the outcome, but continuing here will not change anything (except possibly making things worse). Find another area to edit and return in 6 months and appeal the ban. Again I say this with nothing but goodwill towards you.   // Timothy :: talk  08:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Permission to edit User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam

When I try to edit the page I get the message that it is restricted. It does not say why. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly are you trying to edit this blocked user's page? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Worth noting that removing speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself is not permitted. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Naypta and Lee Vilenski: could be the same editor—but that's OK of course... ——Serial ^# 14:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Sorry, not sure I follow what you mean by "could be the same editor"? You mean that placed the speedy tag on? It was the same user account here (GerardM) who created that page and removed the CSD. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm suggesting that GM and GYAT are one and the same  :) ——Serial ^# 14:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! Sorry! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a very serious accusation. It's also false. Perhaps you'd like to strike it, Serial Number 54129? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not an allegation at all, let alone a serious one. GYAT was only soft-blocked as a username violation, and we explicitly instruct the blocked editor to register a new account with a username that is in compliance with the username policy. ——Serial ^# 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Since User:GerardM first edited on 2003-12-07, and in the light of this nearby edit, you might want to reconsider. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

For your information, I am not the person who created that user page. I don't do that.. It is a board member of the GYA who created that page. As is stated on the page what I do is discussed with him so I do what is in line with what the GYA considers relevant. Again, this is about science, global early career scientists and relevant awards. It is not limited to the GYA and therefor it is not self promoting. GerardM (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GerardM: Someone using your user account created that page. Was someone else using your account at the time? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not create that user.. I did add the entries on the page. GerardM (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So if you personally did not create that user, did someone else do so using your account? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GerardM: It also appears to be blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost, given the vast number of subpages of this user that you have created, per your user log. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

When you hold such an opinion, lets discuss what it is that is reflected in these Listeria lists.

It is what we know about early career scientists, organisations and so far awards that can be characterized as of having no bias. It includes images, links to papers and it shows a scholia for awards, organisations and scientists. It shows the extend English Wikipedia covers all of these. These particular pages are therefore as much about English Wikipedia as about the subject perse. Similar information can be found on other Wikipedias. So no, this is not a webhost, it is a reflection about science and it is relevant to this project. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I think a different person is behind the CYA (role/org account) than GM. But I think that doesn't matter...CYA is softblocked, so it's reasonable for that person to create a new person-account. DMacks (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

That person did create a new WMF account has used it a lot on Commons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@GerardM: I think you need to clarify the situation with your account. Has someone else used your account to edit wikipedia? As others have mentioned, the user page User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam was created by your account and a large amount of the content was added by your account. Who created the account GlobalYoungAcademyTeam is IMO not so important as whether anyone else has access or has used the GerardM account. Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I am quite happy to claim that I created this page and maintained it. I did not create the user, I do not use sock puppets. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I have replaced the speedy tag. If someone who didnt create the page wants to remove it, go ahead. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Already deleted by Fastily. P-K3 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Like a speedy ninja. I left a query on their talk page about the subpages, but I am pretty sure they need to be looked at as a group per my below comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

From taking a look, I concur with C.Fred that given the subpage content linked from here that this is on the face of it, a violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIR. From past experience it looks similar to link-farming - as everything appears to be stored on wiki-data, the only real purpose to having it on ENWP is to gain higher status. There is a related issue that a lot of them appear to have been created using ListeriaBot (see here for recent issues with that.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

From taking a closer look. The subpages all appear to be lists either of wikidata or wikipedia articles. If they are for the purpose of improving wikipedia's articles about the relevant subjects, then a Wikiproject is probably the best option - many wikiprojects contain lists of articles they want to focus on. If they are merely for GerardM to use in their own editing, then move them to his userspace (but there is likely issues with WP:UNOT). But we shouldnt have over 100 subpages being actively curated by an editor and/or bot in a deleted user's userspace. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

So what is the process to get this page restored. The deletion is based on assumptions, they are manifestly wrong. These pages provide information about the extend English Wikipedia supports science, particularly science related to early career scientists. It does enable collaboration, many of the scientist gained Wikipedia articles as a result.

You have not made a case properly and imho it reflects badly on Wikipedia process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

GYA is patently not a user. It might be a project or a Education program and may be something for the Wikipedia:Project namespace but definitely not the space. Nthep (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Like Nthep noted, with GerardM's assertion that these pages provide information about the extend English Wikipedia supports science, particularly science related to early career scientists, and that it does enable collaboration, this sounds more like a WikiProject. There's more information here about what they are and how to start one. Maybe a pre-existing science WikiProject exists that suits your needs? The science WikiProject directory may be something worth taking a look at. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:54, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

With such arguments you basically assert that a speedy deletion and the reason for it is wrong. It should not be a speedy deletion in the first place, its execution while it was discussed is an affront to the due process that is expected as part of a defined process. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to specifically contest the speedy deletion, the place to do that is WP:DELREV. A blocked user's userpage is not an article, nor a directory, nor an advert. If that information is for the benefit of improving the encyclopedia, then either your userspace (as you appear to have created all of the content) or a wikiproject (if it satisfies the criteria, which has a low bar since about the only requirement for a wikiproject is 'to improve the encyclopedia'). Here is a question: What is the intent/purpose of all those lists? Is it intended to be used/turned into an article? Is it intended to be used as an admin aide to collaborate in improving articles? Are they just going to sit there and be periodically updated by ListeriaBot? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, if it helps, I am one of the many people that GerardM has worked with. I was also there right at the start of this process. I am a wiki newbie, just like hundreds others that GerardM has brought to contribute (mostly to wikidata) over the last months (from Bangladesh to Panama). I just tried to access the project page and couldn't find it anymore. The page is basically the starting point for more than 50 organizations of professors (young scientists that are part of young national academies of science as well as their alumni) that are being mapped as part of a wikidata project. See here for more information: https://globalyoungacademy.net/national-young-academies/. PPEscientist (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Strikes me that if the page is being used as the "starting point" for an organisation's efforts, that's prime WP:NOTWEBHOST territory. Reading through that web page, I'm not clear at all on what the link to Wikidata or to any Wikimedia project is. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll ask that as a very direct question: what is the ultimate intended outcome of all this work in terms of Wikipedia article content? DMacks (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi PPEscientist, I feel you may have been misled or giving incorrect information as to the basic point of wikipedia, so I will start from there. English Wikipedia's (ENWP) purpose is to create an encyclopedia. Much as Wikimedia Commons (Commons) is to create a repository of free media, and Wikidata is to create a shared resource of data to use in multiple language wiki's (altho this may have changed in scope, as Wikidata is doing its own thing). ENWP has a number of different spaces for different purposes. Article space is where we store the articles for the readers. Userspace is where editors have their user and talk pages where collaboration/communication to improve articles takes place. Project space (usually denoted by a WP:<title>) is where all the policies, guidelines, noticeboards, documentation for the running of the encyclopedia sit. Its also where we have our Wikiprojects. Wikiprojects are groups of editors that come together to improve a group of articles within their projects scope. WP:MILHIST focuses on military subjects, WP:WIRED seeks to improve the coverage of articles involving women, WP:MEDICINE seeks to improve content on medical articles. The key point here is they are all intended to improve our article content for readers. From your description above, and reading the website you posted, what you describe is something that is more of a project, but it is more of a data gathering/tracking exercise, that doesnt have any direct (or indirect that I can tell) goal/purpose of improving the encyclopedia. This isnt to say its not something that should be done, just that it does not appear to be something that is within our scope for Wikipedia. Hence the rather direct questions to GerardM and from DMacks above. Wikidata being a data collecting project is probably more a good fit for your purpose than wikipedia, and as (from looking at a lot of the pages created by GerardM) a lot of the information is already stored there, likely in scope for that project. Another alternative would be starting your own dedicated wiki. The references to WP:NOTWEBHOST are linking the relevant policy/guideline that lays out that we are not an indiscriminate web host for the hosting of material. We host stuff that is directly (or indirectly) intended to improve the encyclopedia. Data/Tracking does not really fall within that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

It strikes me that you first abuse your own procedures and then ask questions. In the information provided by Robert, you find a link to its website. It shows other organisations and, the majority of them have their own websites as well, they are linked in the information as provided. They are fairly active, they list their members and inform about their accomplishments. Largely this information is used as references for the people involved. They have their own scientific programs, one of them informs about Covid19. These are not specifically linked in our data. Where these papers have a DOI they are included in Wikidata through the normal ingestion methods. This gets reflected in the relevant Scholias.

The ultimate outcome is "share in the sum of all knowledge", a bit like what we do as a movement. Each Listeria lists shows information that is particular for what it is about. As time goes by, more people, more papers are included and as a consequence it becomes no longer viable to just utter "not notable" because the information about people, awards, organisations is directly available and as up to date as we have it. This data will be correct and not suffer from the false friends you find in Wikipedia lists and links.

In Listeria lists and, you know that, it is clearly known what list items have a local Wikipedia article. It follows that as lists are followed, it is easy to check on the quality of articles and provide additional information. One such is that every year new recipients happen to awards. As you may know, there is a Scholia template and it is used on many Wikipedia articles providing additional, up to date information.

For me personally it is again obvious that you do not know what is in front of you. Your procedures are open for abuse as is clearly demonstrated and the only way to address this is to contest this deletion. Given that there was an ongoing real time discussion your procedures are abusive and do not reflect what Wikimedia stands for. I have been an admin for many years and I am glad those days are done. I do not need to reflect on this collective behaviour.

I doubt that there is room to discuss ways that will improve Wikipedia quality by 4 to 6% in its lists and wiki links. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Instead of rants which don't answer any questions, perhaps you can't explain why this wasn't done either in your own user space, or in project space (or on Wikidata), but on the page of a non-existant "user", actually a front for a group (or a shared account), which has been blocked since long. I notice that you already have 640 userspace subpages[91], which is more than the number of mainspace edits you made over the past 5 years. Your activity on user talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk space are minimal. So what exactly are all these pages (in your user space, and in the userspace under discussion here) actually doing for the improvement of enwiki? Fram (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This project was not my initiative but something that I consider important. Otherwise it would be a project with a subpage of my userprofile. At the start a name for a profile was chosen that reflects what the project is about. The user was blocked and this matters little as long as the page is available.

Yes, I have a large number of subpages and they all reflect projects I work on. On my profile page you find what they are about. The problem that I face is that Wikipedia does not have the quality in its information that we seek. In these Listeria lists I provide consolidated data from several Wikipedias about these subjects. Often a Wikipedia is superior in a given domain, I use tooling and manual edits to include the data in Wikidata. These Listeria lists are shared with other Wikipedias. This enables comparison and improvement on the data local and in Wikidata.

Given that we are working in a Wiki way, it allows for autonomous growth. Both local changes and changes from data are reflected in my watchlist. In this way these Listeria lists provide an excellent tool to learn about particular subject matter. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

None of that actually seems to be about improving Wikipedia articles however. And from your description this looks like a project that should be on wikidata. Also your lists are in userspace and so won't be visible in any real fashion for readers to learn from, and they can't exist for the most part in article space as they would be subject to the rules around lists and bots. As well as other editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, all of this seems to belong on Wikidata (if they can use it), but not here. Fram (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that the problem with role accounts and promotionalism connected to the Global Young Academy has been long and ongoing; see for instance GlobalYA (talk · contribs) from 2012 and GYA Press Officer (talk · contribs) from 2017. (I created the article myself in 2011 but have not been very active in keeping the promotionalism out of it since.) —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Now that the main page has been deleted as U5, should I tag the 109 subpages[92] all with U5 as well, or will some kind admin spare me the work and delete them outright? This is separate from the 600+ subpages of the GerardM account, which may need some action as well. Fram (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

De-tagging bulk speedy nominations

I need some help, please, to de-tag speedy nominations for a large number of articles in the User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam user space (example: User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/Sackler Prize for Biophysics. I started doing so manually, then by rollback, but there are too many.

I believe these to be valid pages, created in good faith to detect notable people and, as part of a project, to write their biographies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the pages should be moved to be sub-pages of, say, WP:WikiProject GlobalYoungAcademyTeam? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:AN#Permission to edit User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam a bit higher on this very page. The main user page has been deleted as U5, the editor has been blocked, GerardM has been asked questions to which they gave evasive (or at least completely next to the point) answers... The deletion (tagging) of these subpages was announced there as well (after it had been raised there by multiple editors that the subpages needed attention as well). Please undo your removal of the U5 tagging and let these user subpages of an indef blocked editor / role account be deleted. Fram (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

[Moved under the earlier section, of which I was not aware]

None of what you say means that the material in question is not useful to Wikipedia, or should be deleted. There is only a soft-block, because of the user name, and the user is welcome to edit under another name. We have enough problems to deal with without inventing them, to the detriment of the project and the demotivation of a wanted, novice, contributor.

Your tagging for speedy is challenged; the tags must be removed; you can use AfD if you wish to persist with this nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Which wanted, novice contributor would that be? There is no evidence that any "User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam" exists, and GerardM is not a novice at all. The pages are part of a Wikidata project, according to those working on them. Why then they needed to be created on enwiki, in the userspace of another user is completely unclear, and no answer to this (or to suggestions about where this all belongs) have been given by the editors involved. Fram (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that any 'User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam' exists". False: [93]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Even if they edit on other wiki language versions, it is not really clear how the deletion of subpages not created or edited by them, nearly a year after the editor was blocked here, would have a negative effect on this "wanted, novice contributor". Fram (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

You removed the speedy tag from User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/Dufferin Medal with edit summary: "Perfectly valid preparatory work for future Wikipedia articles", even though we already have an article on the Dufferin Medal and no one will look for material to improve it in a subpage of an editor with zero edits on enwiki. And even if they found it, there is nothing there that can be used to improve the target article, the eight recipients were already included with better descriptions. Fram (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"no one will look..." Having had your previous false assertion refuted, you strangely persist in making false pronouncements, based on your own flawed assumptions. They are unedifying, but also irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah, back to the personal comments I see, making broad negative statements instead of dealing with the actual "false pronouncement". Why does this always happen in discussions with you? (If someone wants an example of similar unhelpful negative replies, look e.g. at Template talk:Infobox comics creator#Convert to wrapper. Trying to have a useful discussion in this manner is next to impossible). Fram (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No personal comment; I was addressing - and very specifically at that (and just as I did in the linked dicussion) - what you did, not who you are. Unlike you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

(ec: Can you stop constantly changing your comments. It is rather annoying to reply to a statement only to get an edit conflict because you have again added stuff to it). Let's see, "you strangely persist in making false pronouncements, based on your own flawed assumptions. They are unedifying, but also irrelevant." is a broad negative statement without any indication of what you base these claims on. Dismissing another editor's comment "just because" is hardly "very specifically" adressing anything that was said. It boils down to "you made an error above, so everything else you say is wrong". I prefer to discuss things in a more adult manner. Fram (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If you think I have deceptively changed the meaning of any of my comments once someone has replied to them, please provide a diff. Otherwise, I will continue to add afterthoughts, fix typos etc. My comment about your false comments was - as anyone can see - preceded with a specific example, highlighted thus: "no one will look...". If you wish to continue to attack me, rather than discuss the user pages at hand, I suggest you open a separate section. As it is, it is clear that the speedy-deletion tags must be removed, and nothing you have said refutes that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The pages I de-tagged are now at AfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam/ASEAN Young Scientists Network. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It was brought to my attention that the subpages were being discussed here after I had already speedied them. I'm recusing myself from further administrative action on this matter, and any admin is welcome to restore pages as they see fit. -FASTILY 21:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't merely brought to your attention; I asked you to undelete them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm recusing from further administrative action, because I consider myself to be involved now. I note that there are also editors who support deletion, and so to ensure a fair outcome for all parties, I think that call should be made by another admin. -FASTILY 21:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, you're not involved; you do not need to recuse; and you should undelete the pages as requested. If someone disagrees with their existence, then they have MfD at their disposal, to allow the community to come to a consensual decision: that is the process established "to ensure a fair outcome for all parties". I shouldn't have to be explaining any of this to someone with access to admin tools. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with everything you just said. Let's examine the facts. You are disputing an administrative action I perceive to be correct which also has support from other editors. I have also !voted on the associated MfD. This is a textbook case of WP:INVOLVED. As previously stated, I am open to my actions being reviewed (in fact I encourage it) and overturned by a neutral third party. I'm tired of repeating myself, so barring any significant new developments, I won't be commenting on this thread any longer. -FASTILY 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary - I'm not disputing your action at all. I even noted that you made it in good faith. I'm simply asking you to reverse it, as policy requires you to, in the circumstnces. But if you won't, then another admin should. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"as policy requires you to" - What policy 'requires' them to do so? WP:SPEEDY and WP:DELETION certainly do not. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

At the very least WP:DPAFD since - unbeknown to Fastily, as I have acknowledged - the speedy deletion had been contested, here, before the pages were speedily deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:DPAFD says absolutely nothing about policy requiring an admin who has performed a speedy deletion reversing it. For someone who insists on constantly badgering people for minor mistakes you should probably refrain from your usual deceptive comments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

- I'm not sure how that link says anything about contested speedy deletions as bare in mind, you don't actually have to tag a page for deletion for it to be speedied. It's also not an article, so anything in AfD doesn't apply. At this stage, the admin doesn't feel it should be refunded, so the next step is DRV; but you'd also need a consensus that the deletion was bad/improper, as asking another admin to reverse the deletion would be wheel waring. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually Wheel only comes into play once a reverted action is reinstated. Admin action - reversion by other admin - reinstatement of original action without clear consensus (this is the bit that is WP:WHEEL. Its actually a very common misconception. Everything else you said applies however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

User page

I doubt that User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam warranted deletion under U5; please will someone restore it? It can be sent to AfD if anyone disagrees with me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want to challenge the speedy deletion of a page, take it up with the deleting admin and, if they disagree, take it to WP:DRV. Regards SoWhy 12:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm ready to do so if necessary, but it seems pointlessly beaurcratc to require that given the context and volume of discussion here already. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Other than a small header naming members of "GlobalYoungAcademyTeam" it's just a prettified version of Special:PrefixIndex/User:GlobalYoungAcademyTeam. Cabayi (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

All the more reason why it should not have been speedily deleted; and why it should be restored, then. It is absolutely not U5 material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:DRV Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; that was suggested above. Did you not see so, and my reply? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That you personally find something pointless doesn't change the fact that DRV is the consensus approved process for dealing with the situation. Take it to DRV. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

You cannot claim consensus when the process has not been maintained. It is obvious that questions were raised at the time that were by "consensus" ignored. So your consensus is of those doing the policing, not reflecting on the reason why, their process and purpose. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Best practices

We've had discussions in the past that failed to gain consensus on including Wikidata-generated lists in mainspace. Have there been any attempts to define good practices for using them outside of mainspace as an error-checking tool? There seem to be a handful of them (<20) on article talk pages and one or two on subpages of talk pages. In the long run, I think some input from people actually doing article improvement as to the most beneficial use of these would be more helpful than leaving them abandoned in userspace somewhere. Choess (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I use these lists in my userspace (specifically at user:Lee Vilenski/cue sports red lists for example), I don't see how the lists from listeria are particularly damaging (especially if you use them to create suitable articles). The issue here, is that it's being done in the userspace of a blocked editor without any evidence of actual improvement to the project.

If this was done in Wikipedia space, or in their own userspace, I would have less issue with this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Robert Fico - non-free image spam

Please semi-protect page Robert Fico together with page-block for user Jurajec12, because of repeated non-free image spam mainly in this article (both under user account and anonymously), despite of tens of warnings/blocks at Commons [94] and multiple explanation attempts/reverts/blocks on other wikis. Not to mention WP:PA [95][96] in response to non-free photo removal. --Teslaton (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Any solution to this? I don't want to continue a rv. war with IPs there, but there is still low quality non-free image (marked for deletion on Commons), most probably cropped extracted still from some agency video. --Teslaton (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: I think you are familiar with images and copyright? The question concerns this edit which replaced the image at Robert Fico with File:Fico 2020.png. At IP (178.143.105.117) has edit warred against removal. The image is up for deletion at Commons with a claim that it is from Facebook. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not an isolated problem of this particular image, it's repeated massive uploading of images, gathered from non-free agency material, social networks, etc. and pushing these into this article and few others under multiple identities. Those images are later treated (tagged and deleted) via standard Commons procedures, but that takes a time and in the meantime, Jurajec12 does not hesitate and uploads new non-free images. So the outcome is, most of the time since March, article exists in the state with a non-free IB image. --Teslaton (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

These personal attacks concern me. As does this one. It's unclear to me if a page block is going to be sufficient here. --Yamla (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It will not be. I gave them an only warning about personal attacks. That is not a manner in which one ought to conduct themselves. El_C 13:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The warning did not work. Harassment was restored and personal attacks were also directed toward myself. Blocked indefinitely for WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:DE. El_C 13:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call the image non-free, just that if it is a free image, it is lacking the necessary elements that commons needs to keep it as a free image (given that it was published to a different site that doesn't have copyright controls ala Flickr first). Unfortunately, Commons *is* right that the uploader (The only likely fighting the EW here) needs to prove at commons they are the photographer of the photo there and thus have it retained, but until they can do that there, we can't really use that photo, and have to stick with the older, free photo. --Masem (t) 13:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

​Of course, not necessarily. But those few of [97], that I've personally looked up via reverse image search, were from copyrighted Slovak agency/newspaper websites (TASR, SME, Pravda, etc.) with not much space left for even "possibly free" interpretation. --Teslaton (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, then if many of their uploads are suspect, we should presume this one is too for that reason, and even more reason they need to proof ownership of that photo at Commons. --Masem (t) 17:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

AIV Needs Attention

There is currently a significant backlog at WP:AIV. I am going to start working on it but some help would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleared out the bot reports; will start helping with the rest.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Handled Thanks to all concerned for the assist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's significantly backlogged from time to time now, and the AGF stuff about 4 warnings is really collectively shooting Wikipedia in the foot because of that situation. See how much damage 81.154.188.218 did because first there was AGF and then no one patrolled AIV for half a day. Also, editors constantly forget to revert all edits by the vandals. I just rollbacked 15 edits by vandal that was blocked 11 days ago. Now would a be a good time to nominate some recent changes patrollers for adminship because the battle is being lost. --Pudeo (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that increasing the number of admins is the answer, even if they do come from the rolls of recent change patrollers. Once they become admins, and the sexy wide-open spaces of adminship are available to them, how're ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm to do the nitty-gritty AIV grunt-work? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, ArbCom should start sentencing misbehaving admins to recent changes patrol. Natureium (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It won't happen, but if they unbundled the toolset and made adminship truly "NBD", it might help. If these admins were approved for certain tasks only, like they are to run a bot via BRFA, and strayed from those approved tasks, flag removed. NBD. If they learned their lesson, let them have it back. No drama needed; any admin/crat could remove/add the flag without a drama board, similar to other PERM or BRFA. But this is a fantasy. So, never mind. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I'm not sure that's even true (that nobody likes doing AIV or anti-vandalism work). And even if it were, does it matter? They're still contributing a net + in some administrative area. If a user knows what they're doing and is trusted, even 10 admin actions per month is a net + for the encyclopedia with no downside. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Part of the issue is that on his break, SQL disabled SQLBot, which was a large part of the reason we stopped having semi-regular "AIV is overrun threads". It removed all the stale reports, which had the benefit of 1) making it look more manageable so people would tackle it, and 2) indirectly declining stuff that didn't need admin intervention. Hopefully SQL will be back at some point in the next few months and can start the bot up again. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
• Half of the stuff that gets reported to AIV is not actually vandalism. Genre warring, for example, is disruptive but definitely is not vandalism. Unsourced edits that were made in good faith are not vandalism. And some random IP editor who puts "hi everyone! p.s. melinda rules!" in the middle of an article should not be given a final warning for vandalism if that was the only edit made in the past 3 months. And this IP should definitely not be reported to AIV after being given that final warning unless there's been further vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  which is why I personally would support the idea of having AIV/RFPP/PERM "clerk-y" type roles: vetted by the community who wouldn't have the technical ability to block, just decline obvious GF yet not needed reports of requests. Also the bad faith ones. It might reduce some of the workload on admins and would help put new potential admins in the limelight and let them gain experience in those adminn-y areas. There isn't technically speaking anything to prevent such action by a non-admin from a policy viewpoint that I'm aware of, but it's generally discouraged. Anyway, just some thoughts from a passing non-admin. \_(:/)_/ Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 00:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  The vast majority of AIV 'clerking' wouldn't be notably difficult. In most the cases where AIV reports aren't vandalism, it's fairly obvious. I don't think it'd help people gain much experience, and the idea of "reducing workload on admins" is a little silly to me. It'd frankly be a waste of editors' time. They wouldn't be able to take action on obvious vandalism, and would exist solely to remove reports that are obviously not vandalism (something competent admins can also do quite quickly, or just ignore and let the bot remove them). SPI clerking is, in contrast, very different, a distinct role from being a CU, and there are real barriers to adding new CUs. There are no such real barriers to adding new admins. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: I see SQLBot's source code is linked from its BRFA. Could someone else run it in SQL's absence? 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • BRFA filed, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MDanielsBot 4. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

TikTok vandalism campaign

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.

---

As User:73.96.106.231 pointed out on WP:RPP, there seems to be a campaign on TikTok engorging viewers to go on Wikipedia and vandalize articles. I suggest a new template on affected articles that tells users not to vandalize the article if they where told to do by a outside source. This is just an advisory and I do not intend to start an entire discussion about external factors for vandalism, but I hope I was helpful. Thank you. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 20:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

SuperGoose007, don't think that's necessary. Vandalism attacks happen frequently, and a template of this nature could be disruptive to genuine editors. Any idea on the original video and/or articles involved? Ed6767 talk! 20:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That is being explored at WP:ANI. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The targeted pages appear to be completely random, unless there is some sort of correlation to them that we're unaware of. 73.96.106.231 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! -- Luk ^talk 21:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we might be looking at the birth of a new meatfarm. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 22:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ahh, no wonder. Diff/964165363 Diff/964165615. When this happens, all we can do is deny recognition by revert, revert or WP:revert, ignore. Quoting from WP:NOTHERE:

  ; Trying to score brownie points outside of Wikipedia: Edits intended for the sole purpose of impressing or amusing third parties outside of Wikipedia, without expecting the edit to remain in place or caring if it doesn't. Examples include edits to articles related to one's religion, intended to score points with one's deity, or editing the name of one's significant other into the article for "beauty".

  
  So they could be indefinitely blocked for that.
  And that is why TikTok is horrible. Don't endorse it; ignore it, block them. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

On a similar topic, I have dealt with issues at Faisal Shaikh (a cricketer who shares the same name as a Tik Tokker (is that the name?). If you look at its talk page, it's ripe with IPs trying to change the article to the Tik Tokker. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Can I Log In, it's not even like a good TikToker either - they have some gems but then there are people like this. I'll keep monitoring the user's page (as a sad TikTok user myself) and will watchlist any linked pages. She'll make some horrible video like oH my GoD i UpSeT the AdmIns as JackSucksAtLife did many months ago, although Jack is actually somewhat funny. This really isn't. Ed6767 talk! 01:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  This explains it all. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 01:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Lets just hope that #VandalizeWikipedia doesn't become a full blown trend. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 01:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

SuperGoose007, it shouldn't hold traction for long hopefully. Ed6767 talk! 01:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The more we talk about it, the greater the encouragement to them. This happens from time to time and never lasts long. Just revert and ignore (and admins block). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Since I hardly ever do this ...

... I have revdelled a couple of revisions on Lynn English High School because of an unsourced sentence in this diff that I found violating WP:BLP (the editor requested whitelisting of the petition for us as a primary source). Can another admin please review and overturn if I overreacted. Thanks. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this revdelete. I'm not going to state why I agree with it, except that the wording could be construed in several different negative connotations and it is unsourced. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Good work on this Dirk. Agree with the rev-del. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Tagging for the RedWarn counter-vandalism tool.

Related links: WP:Tags and Special:Tags

I'm interested on somebody's opinions on the creation of a MediaWiki tag for the RedWarn counter vandalism tool. Other semi-automated tools such as Huggle, WPCleaner, Wikiloop Battlefield, AWB, STiki (R.I.P) and others already use these, and from a debugging and moderation point of view, having a tag would be much more convenient. Mainly, edits made using RedWarn can easily be filtered in Special:RecentChanges and can also be more easily distinguished as semi-automated, especially for those filtering by the existing software defined "rollback" and "undo" tags. In addition, if, in future, an edit filter was wanted to be created as a Wiki-wide basic prevention for use of RedWarn outside of permitted boundaries (i.e. all users must be confirmed to use RW), my interpretation is that this would be easier to create and maintain with a tag as this will be irrespective on the formatting of the edit summary, which may be modified as we work on more updates and if we go forward with the creation of a mobile app. This would also make filtering a users semi-automated edits easier in RfX's as it is possible to hide the "RedWarn" tag.

From a more technical debugging POV, this will allow for easier filtering and occasional automatic monitoring or edits made with RedWarn, helping diagnosing bugs much easier.

AFAIK, a tag can be created by any administrator, however, I'd prefer to establish consensus regarding this first on whether or not it would be appropriate. If this is completely the wrong place to ask, please feel free to close this discussion. Thanks, Ed6767 talk! 20:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I created the tag since this is a really obvious use case, and I don't see any downsides. The appearance and description are at MediaWiki:Tag-RedWarn and MediaWiki:Tag-RedWarn-description respectively. I don't see any edit filters that apply the huggle, STiki, etc tags, so you'll probably need to update your code so that it tags its own edits. I'm not sure how that works, but someone at WP:VPT could probably help you if you don't already know how. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, thanks! I'll get the tag set for the next version, which should be coming within a week. Ed6767 talk! 22:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Concerns about using external CDN

• So, I’m not trying to be grumpy, but I’m personally a bit sick of hearing about RedWarn. It seems to attract users that appear to be young, and threads keep popping up about it, usually for stuff like it being used to mass spam people about itself or stuff like this where an admin created a completely reasonable tag and the creator of the tool seems to be taken aback by it. Edit: misread this thread. Still think this is making a bigger deal than needs to be made
  Basically RedWarn needs to take it down several notches. I can’t think of any script in the 5 years I’ve been active where there’s been so much self-promotion, and that includes things that could arguably be called game changers, like reply-link. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Dunno, I recall a lot of hype around Huggle when it came out... and since it runs on the user's computer, it has so much more potential for wreaking havoc. isaacl (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Huggle requires you to have rollback permissions, RedWarn doesn't, so the potential havoc isn't really comparable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
      • ProcrastinatingReader, Huggle requires rollback permissions because it was blocked wiki-wide until that condition was added, because its use by people who didn't really understand what they were doing was causing disruption. ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

        Iridescent, perhaps I wasn't clear wording my point. Huggle requiring rollback permissions is a good thing for that reason. The potential havoc isn't comparable because Huggle requires an admin to approve usage for a user, whilst RedWarn doesn't, which alone provides some level of vetting to ensure users of the tool aren't going to inadvertently cause disruption. At the same time, though I haven't used RW so I can't be sure, it looks to be more like Twinkle than Huggle, so it probably doesn't matter so much that it's available-to-all. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

      • The issue I was referring to has nothing to do with Wikipedia; running third-party software on your own computer means it has access to everything you do on your computer. A Javascript program only has access to its execution environment within the browser (barring any relevant security vulnerabilities in the browser, of course). isaacl (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
• As long as RedWarn retrieves resources from non-WMF-hosted websites, I won't be installing it, and I wouldn't recommend it for anyone else either. This represents a privacy and security problem, as it puts your Wikipedia user data in the hands of another website. – bradv🍁 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Worth mentioning that, when the content security policy actually gets enforced (phab:tag/contentsecuritypolicy/), this sort of thing will immediately stop working, for exactly these reasons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    Amorymeltzer, do we have a corresponding policy on enwiki at the moment, or are we just waiting for the WMF to make this change? – bradv🍁 00:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

    No, not really. You can do basically anything you want in your own javascript page, as long as it complies with TOU, copyright, and all the usual policies (especially automated editing/bot); if you can write it you can run it. Things that break policies have been deleted (MfD, usually) or dealt with otherwise (ArbCom), but there's no "you have to have the entire source published and on-wiki" — indeed, many of our bots do not, and other packaged applications (AWB, Huggle, CC, etc.) are obviously not on-wiki (but are open source). I'm not sure anyone has ever tested the waters by putting something like a third-party tracker, but that'd be an instant delete/ and block in my book. I'm paraphrasing TheDJ who has pointed out that, if mediawiki was created today, there'd be no user scripting ability, just gadgets. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Bradv has just mentioned one issue I have with the software. I'm also not at all impressed that Ed has appointed themselves the guardian of who can and cannot use the tool, if there is to be a blacklist, that page should be editable by all administrators, in keeping with the AWB user list, the spam blacklists and similar pages. I would strongly echo Bradv's comments about the security risk that the tool presents, it is not something that should be considered safe for use. I would suggest Ed makes it explicitly clear that there are potential security, safety and privacy issues involved with the use of the tool. Nick (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nick and Bradv: I’m a bit less aware than some people here about such things, but it seems to me that wikipedia:RedWarn#External_scripts is alluding to the risks the two of you are discussing. It seems to be presented as a selling point rather than a risk, however. If there are substantial risks involved, a plain English explanation somewhere higher up the page seems to be ideal. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    Wikipedia has its own Privacy policy, which makes no allowance for incorporating other companies' privacy policies by reference. Have the WMF lawyers reviewed these other policies to ensure they are compliant with ours? – bradv🍁 23:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

    Looking through the policy, I'm not sure this is covered. The policy applies to how the WMF uses and discloses data, but this seems to fall under "Community members" or "Third parties". It's strange that it uses external libraries; I would have thought loading javascript from outside a WMF site would be prohibited. If there's sufficient concern (regardless of the privacy policy), we could add an edit filter which warns users when they add the script to their JS pages so that they are aware their IP address and other information will be transmitted to a third party. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:RedWarn and its WP:REDWARN shortcut imply that the community (indeed, Wikipedia) endorses the tool. IMHO there should no endorsement of a tool that uses off-wiki components. A minor reason is that it involves dependence on something that could disappear one day, or be replaced with malware. The major reason is the privacy issue mentioned above. It appears the external sites are very nice but anything that is not directly controlled on-wiki should be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • While I agree that privacy issues should be highlighted, concerns about software not controlled within English Wikipedia apply just as well to tools like Huggle and AutoWikiBrowser, which have their own pages in project space. For better or worse, there is an audience for functionality provided by third-party tools. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  A page having a shortcut link does not imply community endorsement. It's merely there as an easy reference shortcut link. THat's it. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 00:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I see the point you're making but there's plenty of stuff within the Wikipedia namespace not endorsed by the community. Practically every other essay initially comes to mind. It might confuse new users, which are more likely to be the target audience of RW, but it's not out of the ordinary or a misuse of the namespace imo. And there's plenty of downloadable tools within the Wikipedia namespace which are effectively entirely off-wiki tools and could be replaced with far more damaging malware, compared to a browser script, at any time. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd also like to express my concern about third-party hosting of any Wiki tool components, especially of Javascript, for a tool that appears to have community endorsement. If I were a new users, I would certainly think that a tool in WP space (even just the shortcut) had some sort of significant vetting and community endorsement. Waggie (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I've added some responses regarding these concerns below. Thanks for bringing them up. Ed6767 talk! 01:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• question I too share the sentiments of Tony here wrt promotion as well as Brad's about privacy and an additional concern about need as well as the game aspect of it that I see so many of it's users engaging in, similar to that loathsome semi-off Wiki antivandalism tool that keeps a scoreboard. So can someone explain to me what unique feature this tool offers that any of our other approved countervandalism, welcoming and "help" tools don't? Praxidicae (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Praxidicae, from what I can tell, most users prefer my tool for ease of use and user experience. I've tried to make RW much more user-friendly, including easier icons, more common rollback options (like Huggle) and a semi-automatic warning system where it can show a user's last warning level and select a warning level based on this, however, unlike Huggle, this isn't submitted automatically and a user must manually click "Send Notice" by design. I started working on RW after becoming frustrated with the tediousness of Twinkle and it's user unfriendliness and outdated design, I thought I'd put my skills to use. Closing the gap and adding more features is still in progress, and I have many features still planned to add them up. Each tool has a use and need, but it's down to the community really to determine what this is. On the game note: there will never be a scoreboard or anything like that, but I do think the process of making RCP more enjoyable and less tedious is important to increasing the number of recent changes patrollers. I explained some ideas I had about this in a reply to Enterprisey - but it's important to remember that tools are not toys, and it's important to distinguish them as such. I hope that answers your question? Ed6767 talk! 12:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Explanation from Ed6767

@Bradv, Nick, Johnuniq, TonyBallioni, and Waggie:, I appreciate these concerns and thank you all for bringing them up. I didn't pick my CDNs without careful thought first - if you are concerned about privacy, you can check exactly what information is being sent to these CDNs over at the console of your browser in the "network" tab. On Chrome and Firefox, all that is ever sent to the CDNs are your referee, in this case, en.wikipedia.org and some standard headers such as your user agent. No cookies, no tokens, and no network requests within that could compromise your Wikipedia user data. If you are concerned about your IP, the use of a VPN can help mask this.

All software imported through the CDNs is open source and is widely used and renown in the web development community. As somebody under who lives under some of the strictest data protection regulations in the world, I wouldn't choose some sketchy company that would likely result in me being potentially sued, fined, jailed, or even consider the idea of compromising hundreds of Wikimedia Global accounts, and consequently causing harm to hundreds of people, hence the use of Google and JSDelivr. Having being a past Google Cloud Platform customer, I am experienced and trust Google's cloud products in the regards of privacy and am satisfied with both their security and data handling, especially as with a CDN, the most sensitive information they are getting is an IP address, which it is important to remember that this is sent with every single request you make online. I am willing to also implement checksums to prevent the issue Johnuniq called out with the CDN content potentially being replaced with malware, which while extremely unlikely, it's a good security measure nonetheless. If the CDN goes offline, sources still exist in the respective git repos, so they can be easily recompiled and uploaded to another CDN.

Here's what I know as a developer, and the person who set up and picked the CDNs regarding this:

1. No tokens, cookies or any data that could compromise your account are ever sent to external CDNs - modern browsers also prevent this from happening.
2. If checksums are implemented, if external scripts are replaced with malware, the web browser would outright refuse to load the external scripts as the checksum would not match.
3. HTTPS is used, so the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks are minimal and are, depending on the situation, on the same level of risk as that of Wikimedia websites. In addition, it is important to distinguish that these attacks are not issues with the CDNs themselves.

In my opinion, from a security point of view, having the chain from our computers to GitLab, then back to our computers, from which we do a final review of the changes, publish, then update the version within the on-wiki file is significantly more secure than directly editing and publishing the script here and can increase testing. Even if a user makes a malicious edit to the GitLab repository, all code is reviewed before manually sending it to the repository, then finally confirming this by updating the version number within redwarn.js on-wiki. And if a bad change is made and published, this won't be applied until the version number is manually updated, and in future, the checksum too.

Regarding the blacklist, Nick, I agree. The current JS blacklist is a bit of a bodge, and I think making me like "the king and overlord" of the tool completely defeats the point of open-source software - it should be down to the administration of the MediaWiki instance itself to control this, and I'd like some input from you guys regarding the best way to handle this, or whether a blacklist would be useful at all over a simple block, or if certain RedWarn features would require a RFP.

TonyBallioni - admittedly, I have been quite liberal in terms of promotion and user intake, which is not ideal and wasn't the greatest idea in the first place. I'll stop completely in that regard now, past the passing mention. Self promotion is of course, self promotion.

Regarding my persistent use of "modern browser", the question may arise, "well what if they're using an older browser?". Simple answer: they can't. My choice to make RedWarn only compatible with newer browsers is by design for both functionality and security reasons. Another question: why can't you put all this stuff on-wiki? I can do that for everything but the fonts. But, then that'll make the whole page at least ~9 MB in size which is simply unfeasible - using separate files allows for easier caching, in fact, your browser may still have the CDN scripts from another website that shares them.

Again, thank you all again for raising your concerns, I appreciate it.

TLDR: No user data is sent to the CDN, and I've made sure of that. There are measures I could also put in place regarding extra security to mitigate the risk of an external script being changed via a checksum. Ed6767 talk! 01:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi Ed6767, thanks for the response. However, isn't Google's CDN still getting our IP, user agent, and referrer URL? That would seem to be user data to me. These are all data points that is normally protected quite carefully behind the CU tools. Waggie (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Waggie, those are all sent within any request. There is no easy way to stop this data from being sent, and it's highly unlikely Google stores these logs for long, or even stores them at all, especially if you consider the amount of traffic Google receives. Ed6767 talk! 01:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ed6767, but jsdelivr openly says that they track requesters' IPs and do not expunge them after any set period of time. And it says that your data gets forwarded to Cloudflare, Stackpath, Fastly, and Quantil. – bradv🍁 01:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, any website does that. If it didn't hand your IP over, how would the service providers (Cloudflare, Stackpath and Fastly, Quantil is China only, seeing as WP is fully banned there now that's unlikely to apply) know where to send the data back to? I'd love to mask this info, but it's simply impossible. Ed6767 talk! 02:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ed6767, Wikipedia doesn't. It serves as its own CDN, and doesn't load any external resources. You are single-handedly attempting to change that. – bradv🍁 02:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, Wikipedia doesn't? With all due respects, I suggest you read up on how an IP address actually works in relation to the internet. The page on them has a pretty good summary. Wikipedia does collect your IP and user agent, and actually provides them in a more open way in comparison to CDNs as these can be accessed by any trusted volunteer though a simple UI, whereas a CDN manager would have to dig through thousands of log files and millions of requests, not just specific editors. There's nothing new about what I'm doing here really. It's not new, yes Wikipedia has a CDN but it is considerably smaller and far less optimised for JavaScript delivery. If somebody is concerned about this info being collected, they can use a VPN or proxy along with a user-agent switching browser addon. (apologies if I misinterpreted you here) Ed6767 talk! 02:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  The Foundation, unlike JSdelivr, do not keep IP or user agent data information indefinitely. The data retention guidelines state that they delete or de-identify information after 90 days. This is why CheckUser checks sometimes come up stale if the last edit was beyond that time frame. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Should also clarify, I have no access to this data at all, and I'm unsure what exactly the security concern of them having this info is, especially as an IP address is sent to every single website you visit, indirectly or directly. It can't be traced back to your user account, your history, or even that it was RedWarn that asked for it, and it's unlikely it can be maliciously used as the data is not public-facing, not to mention the volume of data flowing through these CDNs every second - checkusers have such strict restrictions because the data is not public-facing, and the risk of a checkuser using info maliciously is greater or equal to that of a rogue employee at a CDN, who, before even getting close to this data must also sign NDAs and other privacy agreements, as my understanding from past Google and Cloudflare employees is. Ed6767 talk! 02:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am a checkuser so I'm aware of how IP data gets shared with volunteers. For one thing, it only shares data related to edits, not to reading pages. And the WMF privacy policy specifies the terms on which IP data gets shared with outside parties: We put requirements, such as confidentiality agreements, in place to help ensure that these service providers treat your information consistently with, and no less protective of your privacy than, the principles of this Policy. Have any of these CDN services you are using signed a confidentiality agreement with the WMF? I have. – bradv🍁 02:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, why? Why is that needed? They can't tell who you are, what page you visited or anything like that. Only the domain you're from. en.wikipedia.org - and that's one of the most popular sites on earth. In fact, many browser extensions could already but making requests to these CDNs? Not to mention, with caching a request isn't made every time you load a page. I'm not a lawyer. I am somebody who got sick of using Twinkles horrible interface and put my skills to use to help retain the quality of this encyclopedia, following every practice I have to do and have done with any public-facing web project. I'm willing to make fixes, but what are you even proposing here? Ed6767 talk! 02:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ed6767, what you haven't explained is what advantage there is in hosting this script offwiki. I'm quite concerned by the privacy and security problems mentioned above (and yes, data is being sent to non-WMF servers), but also by the fact that Wikipedia editors can't watchlist the script to ensure it doesn't get compromised. So what are the advantages of this approach? – bradv🍁 01:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, advantages to the approach are faster loading times, less strain on Wikimedia's infrastructure, better caching (i.e. leading to less data usage for those on metered internet connections), flexibility cross-wiki (as there is one standard script to install, which will become very useful when expanding beyond Wikimedia Wikis) and ease of deployment and readability for users and debuggers. If I wanted to host on Wiki at this size, I'd have to minify the entire script, making it unreadable. The script on Wiki can still be watchlisted for version changes, and over at https://www.npmjs.com/package/redwarn-web and https://gitlab.com/redwarn/redwarn-web, a user can see the source and release of each version. Other services can provide email update notifications for NPM packages. Ed6767 talk! 02:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ed6767, I am not convinced by any of these arguments. The WMF manages its own infrastructure to run one of the largest websites in the world, without the help of any external CDN. Cross-wiki scripts are easily implemented between WMF sites (you can fork it for non-WMF sites if you want). Watchlisting the onwiki script (which is not being used) is of little to no use if the CDN or the script itself gets compromised, by you or an outside bad actor. In my opinion, if you expect this script to be used and endorsed by the editing community, it should be hosted on Wikipedia where it is subject to proper community review.

  Another part of this, which may be related, is that for some reason the marketing of this script has consistently targeted new editors. I am not aware of any experienced editor or administrator using this script and endorsing its use to the community. That, combined with the questionable technical practices, lead me to think that the development of this script is not entirely above board. – bradv🍁 02:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Bradv, like I said, 1. I can use a checksum to prevent these changes from passing so a browser will refuse to load a script if the checksum of the file doesn't match. 2. Nothing is stopping malicious changes from happening to on-wiki user scripts. 3. I will not use WMF infrastructure as a Javascript CDN unless completely necessary. My global account gets compromised, the entire thing goes down. Not to mention how MediaWiki is not designed for it. On a side note, what does an experienced editor or administrator using the script has anything to do with these security concerns? Marketing of the script at newer users is mainly because I found many more experienced users are acclimatised to Twinkle, and newer editors may prefer the user-friendliness of RedWarn, especially with its reduced feature set at present as many experienced users become more Twinkle power users. I feel like you're taking these concerns more at face value here. Ed6767 talk! 02:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  There are many things which prevent malicious changes to user scripts. The only people who can edit user javascript pages are interface administrators or the user themselves. That's a total of 12 people. Mediawiki actually is designed to deliver JavaScript modules, see the mw:ResourceLoader introduced in 2011. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, ResourceLoader doesn't necessarily make Wikipedia a good dedicated CDN. I'm mostly talking in regards to web content delivery, like fonts ext. Its unlikely WMF would host those unless I managed to have a toolforge instance running, which then has its own complications. I'm by "Nothing is stopping malicious changes from happening to on-wiki user scripts", that means as in as bad acting interface admins or compromised accounts. Many popular user scripts have owners without 2FA, and users have no built-in update notifications, which does make it so that there is relatively nothing stopping a change, or anything notifying users of that. Ed6767 talk! 03:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ed6767, I agree that new users are more likely to be receptive to changing their Wikipedia workflow. So I am not surprised you've gain more traction with that set. However, I am concerned by the lack of experienced users utilizing the script for two reasons. Experienced users understand some nuances to counter-vandalism that newer users may not have considered. Their breadth of experience would offer feedback for you that newer users will not be able to generate. Equally important is that poorly done recent change patrolling harms the encyclopedia. This is why Rollback is a permission and why Rollback is required for use of Huggle. Speaking for myself, your marketing had intrigued me but the obvious security concerns mean that I have not run the script myself. So I would also personally love for experienced editors to be using it as they may be able to vouch that the script will enhance our recent change patrolling above and beyond what Twinkle can do, given both the security and policy concerns that have been raised. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Ed6767: You may be interested in https://cdnjs.toolforge.org and https://fontcdn.toolforge.org (although it appears they would not address the core problem, which I agree is a bad idea) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  @Pppery, Waggie, and Enterprisey:, thanks for the links - and really, explaining myself at 3 AM probably wasn't the greatest idea in the world, so going forward, I'd love to see if I could use Wikimedia Toolforge to make a dedicated CDN for RedWarn, or extend on an existing CDN project so that RedWarn completely can not lean on these services as I completely understand everyone's concerns (now I'm more awake :p), and I'll immediately get to work on sorting that out. I admit that using these services is totally not ideal and definitely does carry some privacy concerns, especially in terms of the WMF's Privacy Policy. Seeing other CDNs set up on toolforge has definitely been a relief as it means it has been done and it very much is feasible. I'll move RWs code back on-wiki and implement a couple of speed improvements so that the detriment is minor if there is a major one at all once I have the toolforge set up. I will have to use the CDNs in the meantime while I get everything on toolforge sorted out as the approval process can be up to a week long, and if it is denied I'll need to ask another toolforge CDN provider if they'd be willing to host the additional scripts and fonts. This is a much more ideal solution for privacy that will mean that RW would never request anything from non-Wikimedia hosted sites. Thanks, everyone :) Ed6767 talk! 10:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ed6767: Firstly, I can see that you're frustrated with the response you're getting here, which is understandable. I'm sorry for that. It's clear that you're putting a lot of time, effort, and passion into trying to make something that can be very useful to the community. I really respect you for that, and you have my sincere gratitude. A lot of folks on Wikipedia are obviously very sensitive about privacy concerns, and are concerned about even just having IP and useragent passed to a third party (who, as noted above, DOES collect that information and store it without any specification as to when it will be deleted, or what will be done with it). Folks are willing to trust Wikipedia more or less, even with the possibility of compromised admin accounts/etc., because there's at least a level of transparency and accountability here that is ingrained in the community and in policy. I think that folks feel that Google may not have nearly the same level of transparency and accountability, nor the drive that Wikipedia has. Google has corporate motivations that don't necessarily match those of Wikipedia. I think I've summed up things OK. As I'm not a programmer, I don't understand all of the complexity here, but is there a way that these concerns could be better addressed in your project? I would likely support it, if they were. Waggie (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
• I totally agree with what people are saying above, especially Waggie and Bradv. I would also like to say thank you for the effort you've put into this, and I really hope you stick around - we need more talented JavaScript developers. My main concern is with auditing - at the moment the only way to track changes to the script are to download it every so often. Scripts that are stored on-wiki have their version history tracked just like any other page.
  I am also concerned about having "yet another tool where people can treat WP:RCP like a video game", as I said off-wiki. The user interface of a tool has immense power to shape people's behavior, and I observe a disturbing trend of letting WP:PRESERVE fall by the wayside in favor of offering the limited but clear-cut choice of "revert" or "ignore". I'm not blaming you for that at all, though! I'm just saying it's really important to consider the impact new RCP tools have on community behavior. (P.S. I read the code, for what it's worth, and it looks pretty good! Nice easter egg.) Enterprisey (talk!) 08:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Enterprisey, regarding the whole RCP like a game point, you bring up a very interesting point. It has become a somewhat frequent issue of inexperienced users running amuck with them. But as of right now, there is a lack of RCP and some changes go unnoticed for a while, and maybe making them more accessible is a key part in getting more users onboard and consequently improving the quality of pages - but it's important to distinguish that these are tools, and tools are not toys. I'd like to see in RedWarn potential encouragement to use CVU and some basic tutorials built-in for more inexperienced users that I'd also like to curate with some CVU volunteers, because when I was starting out I had no clue about any of this, and if more users are beginning to use a tool, maybe starting from the tool level and implementing tutorials into a section of the tool would be useful. If I get a toolforge instance up, I could also potentially set up where a user could request for help from another user regarding a change, and will tell you the result of the action, such as "user decided to rollback because..." followed by a user inputted reason. That may become a useful learning tool, and also help newer editors who are unsure on whether something is against policy or not, or who just need another opinion. But those are just ideas for now, but it'd be interesting how they'd turn out in future. Ed6767 talk! 10:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Enterprisey, I agree. On my watchlist I see far more unwarranted Huggle rollbacks than unreverted vandalism. Especially concerning to me is the frequent use of huggle to revert good-faith, constructive but unsourced edits. Even more concerning, I've seen rollback used against purely constructive edits by new users who did some minor thing wrong, even when the edit was sourced. I did some RCP antivandalism work way back in 2010, and I know that's an eternity in WP terms, but I recall that rolling back anything other than obvious vandalism was grounds to get rollback revoked. What happened to that? −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  As a note to any Hugglers who may be watching, Huggle does have a "revert assuming good faith" option, which prefixes the edit summary with "Reverted good faith edits by [user]", allows you to enter a custom summary, and also undoes the edit without using the rollback feature. For example: [98]. I don't know if RedWarn has a feature like this, as I don't use the tool, but if not it might be a feature worth considering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, RW does have AGF rollback, but at the moment it just sets a prefix in the rollback reason prompt (i.e. Reverting good-faith edits... ). Ed6767 talk! 23:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

  Gotcha. I think it might be clearer if the tool reverted the edit rather than rolled it back, though there is an allowance in policy for it: The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary, then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. I had to look at the policy just now to realize that, though, I was also under the impression that Enterprisey was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Resolution

@Barkeep49, Waggie, Bradv, Pppery, Enterprisey, Wugapodes, Nick, Johnuniq, TonyBallioni, Amory, Isaacl, and Praxidicae: Thank you all again for raising your concerns regarding the use of external CDNs and privacy. Over the past few hot and admittedly stressful hours, I have fast-tracked this issue due to the privacy concerns and I've moved all external content to Wikimedia controlled servers via Wikimedia Toolforge (redwarn.toolforge.org), meaning that effective immediately RedWarn is completely hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The scripts on the toolforge instance are direct copies from the original source. The main script itself is also now back on Wiki, so changes can be tracked easier for each update. If any more technical user would like to review the changes more precisely, the GitLab is also open for anyone who wishes to analyse the commit history. Thank you all for your feedback. If I have missed any scripts by accident, or have any questions, please let me know. Ed6767 talk! 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, thank you for doing this, and sorry for the disruption this has caused to your workflow. – bradv🍁 19:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bradv, thanks, and it's no problem. Privacy risks are very serious and given the amount of concern, it did warrant an immediate change. Ed6767 talk! 20:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ed6767, thanks for your responsiveness. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Might be worth updating what's on GitLab sooner rather than later, also, since that's linked from WP:REDWARN (or linking to the dev branch if that's what's being reflected on-wiki). I saw you removed the warning about external links and was briefly alarmed when I checked the source on GitLab because they're still used there (for example). It wasn't until I came back to this conversation that I went and checked User:Ed6767/redwarn.js. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, sorry about that. I made this change on the release script level at Wikipedia, as modifying the source (what you see on GitLab) would take longer, and I usually like to include patches in as I go through the code while replacing instances of it, but those patches don't always work or carry through with newer changes so I apply direct changes to the script when a change needs to be made immediately, then add them later to the dev branch - so it's unlikely you'll see a change on the release branch until the release of the next version. Hopefully, once I reorganise my workflow there won't be too many of these confusing issues. Ed6767 talk! 22:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: Thanks for all your effort, and like the others, I'm sorry about the amount of trouble you've had to go to. Johnuniq (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: Line 1248 of Special:PermaLink/964310101 appears to be loading off site content from a personal repository still. As far as the YouTube links, I haven't read the entire code base - is it obvious to users that they will be loading external content prior to following those links? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, thanks for pointing those issues out, just fixed them. I also added a confirmation before opening the external links to Youtube. Ed6767 talk! 13:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Closure request

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

---

A closure is requested for Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 10#Thomas_Demery, which is overdue for closure by more than a week. All of the usual suspects are involved and cannot perform the close. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC is that-a-way. I'm not sure using AN to jump the que is appropriate. El_C 10:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, colour me someone who forgot ANRFC existed. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, Stifle. El_C 10:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

And to save any more clicks and bytes, it has been closed now. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha. Closing. El_C 12:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Block of User:JohnDoe06.2020

JohnDoe06.2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have indefblocked this account per WP:NOTHERE because this account is here, well, not to build an encyclopedia. (Probably it is also a block evasion, but I have no idea who the master could be and I am not going to pursue this any further). If someone feels this is a bad block feel free to unblock.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That survey looks hinky. - --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but at a guess I'd say that they would be the same person as User:JOHNDOE, who seems to have a globally locked account and history of socking. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

John Doe is a placeholder name used in some countries. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I get the impression it's a WMF staffer who's afraid of becoming the point-man for this still-obscenely-unpopular thing, hence the name style. WMF staffers have generally been getting a lot of stick since Framgate due to the perception that they aren't interested in listening to us and talk at us instead of to us, and this rebranding bullshit is more of the same in that vein. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, well. If it it's a staffer, then this should be treated as meatpuppetry if nothing else. They can't go around the encyclopedia urging WMF surveys on folks and then pretend to be an "ordinary" editor: are we to be taken for fools? If they want to do WMF work, do it under a WMF account. Otherwise, NOTHERE literally sums it up. ——Serial ^# 21:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it's a WMF staffer: looks to me like canvassing from someone against renaming. "Please take your time and save Wikimedia!" does not strike me as a Wiki(m|p)edia Foundation-approved position. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess this was an LTA user having fun. Highly unlikely (I would even say impossible) this was a staffer.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocked IP with bot like edits - Should the edits be kept or removed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.9.128.236 Should the edits be removed or kept 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) 1.Ayana, probably. Unreported bot, odd edits without good reason provided and many have already been reverted. Ed6767 talk! 12:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Edits don't look at all like a bot - only a small number of edits at a time, only one or two edits per minute often followed by gaps of more than a minute, occasionally not putting an edit summary, lack of consistency etc. Also is there consensus for all biography articles to have an infobox? The edit summaries may be wrong but it's probably just selecting one that they had recently used that isn't what they intended rather than anything malicious. And if this was mistaken for a bot, why was logged in editing also blocked? Peter James (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

You'd do good to read WP:BOTCOMM, it's not the mass-editing that's problematic, it's the fact that the edit summaries are unrelated at times, they don't respond to queries and a lot of their edits are disruptive, combined with the fact that multiple edits are made per minute and then you see how it's an issue. Logged-in editing was blocked because there's a chance it's a logged-in editor using it for WP:GHBH editing, new users would not be able to make rapid edits without the necessary know-how. :) --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The message they haven't responded to was at 11:56; their last edit was at 11:43. They have usually responded previously, and their edits go back more than a year; it's likely that they have used another IP address or account before then, but this doesn't look like a logged-in editor. Also the edit summaries are sometimes unrelated, but your template for the first block and settings for the second also look unrelated to the reasons for the blocks - sometimes people just use the wrong summary. Peter James (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

They don't respond to any queries or messages, they just add an infobox or make random edits to their talk page (see talk page history), hence there's a clear reason for a CIR block and revoking TPA. Just because you think this doesn't look like a logged-in editor does not mean that's the case, not saying my hypothesis is the truth but certainly has a better basis. [S]ometimes people just use the wrong summary is not justifiable excuse when mass-editing, hope that explains it, I've blocked atleast a couple hundred accounts, so trust me I get the gist. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC close request for WT:MoS discussion

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.

---

Would someone please close this RfC, about the use of "was" vs. "is" to describe defunct periodical publications? A short discussion at the end made it apparent that there is not enough agreement on the outcome to avoid a formal close. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Request

Hi, Please remove PCR from my account. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls Edits bias 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.

---

I consider myself a novice and welcome your help. I have edited many wiki pages and enjoy finding citations when needed. One post, Horacio Gutierrez, has been extensively vetted, edited, and approved by several wiki editors. Recently, Graywalls began deleting and finding issues with the post. I locate references and pattern the posts I make after other similar posts so that they follows the wiki format. My concern is that Graywalls may have an inherent bias against Mr. Gutierrez (Hispanic). I am not sure if he is a colleague or critic, or? He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years). I added additional references and the body of work, awards, records, concerts over 4 decades and career speak for Mr. Gutierrez. Graywalls has placed issues with the article once again that has been already vetted. It barely reads like a biography anymore from his continued edits. Yet, he is still finding issues. I believe his posts (all posts on wiki) need to be reviewed. I am sorry to bring this up. But, I am not sure how to get someone to help me. maryphillips52

I have notified User:Graywalls of this thread. — Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#User_Maryphillips1952_on_article_Horacio_Gutiérrez which you were notified, and are invited to participate in and I shared the concerns I have with regard to the article. That post is basically a request for others to evaluate for neutral point of view. Graywalls (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong on WP:ANI? The user Maryphillips 1952 complained about this issue on my talk page. The racism clam is very sketchy and really unnecessary.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, I started the discussion over there instead of continuing back-and-forth editing any further within the article for other editors to evaluate the statement "considered one of the greatest pianist" in reference to sources presented. This was before they opened the case on ANI. Graywalls (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Graywalls:, This board is also WP:AN, for administrator discussions; I meant shouldn't this be on ANI instead? Yes NPOV is a good place to discuss it, as it seems like a content dispute. On the other hand, Maryphillips1952's promotional long term editing on this subject may be something for ANI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@ThatMontrealIP:, that's a valid point, but seeing I already started the discussion over there before all, so perhaps starting another one elsewhere would be viewed as WP:FORUMSHOP Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

User:maryphillips1952, I would say that it is your edits that stop this reading like a biography, but like an advertisement. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

With regard to Maryphilips1952's assertion that "He is questioning the use of great pianist in his post (which has been there for years).", I am not seeing that being said within in the prose, as of May 20, 2019, so I am not understanding why they're saying it has been vetted by other editors and has been there for years. [May 20, 2019 revision] Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If you go back to 2006 - This is how the post read (editor Davis Kosner) Gutierrez is known for playing that is imbued with a rare combination or romantic abandon and a classical sense of proportion and is considered by many piano connoisseurs to be one of the greatest pianists of the second half of the 20th century. You will need to go back to much later posts to get a full picture of Mr. Gutoerez' post history. I am trying to make an excellent post with your help. Please refer to the entire history of the post. Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

just to skip to the end of this time-wasting, see this post at COIN. The user has a very obvious COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Then it's a good thing the article was changed. Can't you see the difference between a neutral encyclopedia article and a promotional blurb, which that was and seems to be what you want? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Outing?

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

---

What do we think of [99]? I would say this may step over the line of what may be reasonably inferred from a username. Guy (help!) 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It can't really be said transposing one letter is obfuscating their identity on wiki. Unless they think everyone else are idiots, especially when you have an obvious potential COI to anyone who is familiar with the topic. If Hon Salo started editing on star wars articles we wouldn't say 'Nope not a notorious smuggler at all...' Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

this seems like clear outing to me. Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information says, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. The user does not seem to have voluntarily posted those things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Note: @JzG: Information related to this is now suppressed per the oversight policy. In the future, if you see attempted outing, please refer the matter to the oversight team either via Special:EmailUser/Oversight or by emailing oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org. Please do not post the issue on WP:AN, as that may inadvertently draw more attention to the privacy-sensitive matter (c.f. Streisand effect). Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, if I was sure, I'd have done that in the first place, as I usually do. Guy (help!) 21:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I would recommend even when you're unsure, send it to oversight anyway—the worst that will happen is we say, "Thanks for reporting, but we don't think this crosses the line." Please don't feel it's a waste of our time. Mz7 (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Mz7, sure, but it was definitely marginal this time. Guy (help!) 23:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest the point is there's never a good reason to have a discussion about an actual case. If the edits aren't eligible for suppression then there's no point discussing their eligibility for suppression. If the edits are eligible for suppression, you've partly defeated the purpose by letting everyone know of these juicy details which have no business being on Wikipedia. I mean heck, there's a good chance in most cases posting about it here will mean more people will have seen what is suppressed then would have ever seen it if no one had bothered to say anything even ask for suppression. Even if you're asked for oversight and were rejected and you disagree, it would be better to engage either privately with the person who rejected your request, some other oversighter, or arbcom. Likewise if something was suppressed but you disagree you still shouldn't be discussing these concerns publicly. Discuss privately. If they reverse the oversight then maybe you can discuss publicly if there's still a reason. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Jerm

Hello, I would like to have my user rights removed as I will be retiring from Wikipedia in a few days from now, thank you. Jerm (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contributions over the years and enjoy your retirement. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Jerm (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS/N#RfC: Fox News

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.

---

Due to close later this week. Could probably use a “panel closure” (more than one person) from uninvolved admins. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If admins want to collaborate on a close, that's welcome of course, but it may not be what happens in this case. El_C 19:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

It sounds good in theory, but getting it to happen is a whole other matter. But who knows, maybe this time it'll happen. El_C 19:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would just add that it would probably be best if admins participating in such a closing were individuals previously having minimal involvement in topics of U.S. politics, just to avoid any assertion of bias. BD2412 T 19:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• I'd be willing to help close as part of a panel if that's the way this is going. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Just to clarify given the various calls to have non-American editors hold down the panel, I am American but generally do not edit American politics articles. While it would be good to have some non-American perspectives, I'm not sure that having exclusively non-Americans weigh is necessarily desirable (I could see that playing poorly to the external audience per Sdkb's comment below) or feasible given that a handful of non-American editors have already declined. That having been said, I'm willing to comply with whatever we feel is appropriate regarding the composition of a panel. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to see a non-US experienced editor (or editors) with minimal involvement in US politics close this, but that's a hard find - a multiple member panel is better in that case to avoid assertions of bias. I don't know too many non-US editors though, maybe ToBeFree, if they are willing? --qedk (t 愛 c) 21:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Fifty thousand words. Sorry, I can't evaluate that in any reasonable amount of time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Good lord, I saw the subheadings but didn't realize it was that long. Guess I found my next book. Primefac (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed quite messy, Primefac if you're willing. :) @Lee Vilenski and K6ka: if either of you want something fun. That's about all on my closer list, I'm afraid. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  Happy to help, but anyone expecting a swift close here is incredibly mistaken. It's a HUGE debate! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps don't make this panel exclusive to admins. There are some very experienced non-admin closers (S_Marshall comes to mind, and he's non-US), and I think including non-admins may be a good idea to avoid controversy. Also agree with the comment BD made about participating admins having minimal involvement in topics of US politics (and related issues). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I have contributed to that debate as an editor and therefore can't touch it.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, you people are really in love with bureaucracy, aren't you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

No sane uninvolved admin would close this on their own without help.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we tend to underestimate what a qualified closer is eventually willing to do. Many daunting closes end-up, after an above average delay perhaps, getting closed by a single closer. People step-up. This is not a comment about the wisdom (or not) of a panel close in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

How does a panel close constitute "bureaucracy"? I guess "you people are really in love with collaboration, aren't you?" doesn't have the same ring to it. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Panel closes aren't bulletproof but (at least IMO) do have more of an effect of "settling" a discussion (at least for a while) than a single closer. It also makes it harder to make ad hominem claims about the closer. It's been largely effective in the times I've seen it employed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to be on a panel. I'm American. Other than writing The Lincoln Project, I've mostly stayed out of politics on the wiki. I agree that having at least some (if not majority) non-American representation on the panel would be good. Perhaps Sandstein, Hut 8.5, or Jo-Jo_Eumerus, all of whom I know from my WP:DRV work, strike me as excellent admins, and I believe are all in Europe. If we ended up with two Americans, I'd suggest picks from across the political spectrum (I'll self-identify as left-wing, with a generally low opinion of Fox News). I've done one panel close (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (4th nomination)). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You probably should not have pre-stated your opinion of the source in question while volunteering. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, Surely it's better to declare that then to keep it hidden? I anybody feels I can't do a fair close, I'm happy for somebody else to do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree with Sdkb's point below that the reason to use a panel is not so much quality control, as perception control. Given that, I'll withdraw my name from consideration. And I'm also thinking having the panel made up of all non-US editors would be a good plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll have to decline. I don't fancy trying to sort through 100 pages of discussion on a highly contentious subject, not counting everything else that's linked to. Hut 8.5 17:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I can join the panel (I am not from the US, not involved in the US politics, have not looked at the discussion, and hopefully I am experienced enough), but it will be slow (next to my full-time job I am also involved now into some Wikimedia-related activities which take my time and have a priority). Obviously no problem if there are other people willing to do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Though I have disclosed my real-life identity (or at least it is easy to trace), and I do not want to get more serious threats than I am already getting, which probably means I should not be part of the closing panel.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I !voted in the RfC, but I want to share a few thoughts here regarding process:

1. Yes, the close should be done by a panel. While I think it's perfectly possible that a single dedicated editor might be able to read the discussion and make an informed judgement, no matter what the outcome/how solid their reasoning I would expect them to be immediately challenged, whereas a panel close offers some chance of delivering some finality. So a panel is needed not for ensuring the close be done well, but for ensuring (as best we can) the perception that it has been done well.
2. I think we may be underestimating the amount of external media attention this close may garner — Hemiauchenia is the only one who has brought it up so far that I've seen, but this is the sort of thing that I could easily see being featured on Fox News' nightly programming, so we need to be ready to explain our decisions not just to an internal audience but to an external one. Having 2 million viewers descend on us is not something I'm sure we're prepared for — we're used to covering culture wars but not so used to being the center of one ourselves. To prepare, I echo Guy Macon's suggestion that the RfC be moved to a subpage, which could be protected if needed (if that happens, we should have a banner ready to direct the angry canvassed mob to a sub-subpage where they can vent, so that they don't end up doing it everywhere else on Wikipedia). The closers might even want to write out a separate page for explaining the decision to external audiences that starts with the basics about what a RS is and how consensus works before getting to the decision. Also, there is an increased possibility of threats of harm here, especially if the closers are editors who disclose their real identity, so we should proactively make sure that our processes there are solid (this isn't overreacting — it's what's happened to most people I know who have been spotlighted on Fox).
3. I'm seeing a lot of editors decline above due to the expected workload, which has the potential to set up an unfortunate dynamic where those most committed to thoroughness step aside, whereas those who might be more tempted to skim volunteer. I generally trust that people know the following, but just to state it clearly, please don't let that happen — joining the close means you're committing to reading the full discussion, and you should not volunteer if that's not something you're willing to do.

Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think there should be no opining on the RfC itself in this discussion. Let's limit ourselves to organizing a panel close, or just have a single admin close it. Whichever. El_C 02:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  El C, absolutely agreed. Enforcing the meta-ness of meta discussions is a perpetual challenge. I'm going to collapse the small bit above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• RoySmith, thanks for the ping and the vote of confidence. I'm not sure whether I want to be part of such a panel, but if I were, I'd propose the following methodology:
  • In a spreadsheet, each closer assesses each opinion based on how much weight it should carry in the light of Wikipedia policies (e.g., from 0 for pure votes or political rants to 2 for well-reasoned arguments that discuss applicable reliable sources). The three sets of weights are then averaged.
  • The closers also jointly assign each opinion to one or more of the options being discussed. E.g., an opinion such as "first choice 1, second choice 2" could see 75% of the opinion's weight assigned to 1 and 25% to 2.
  • Based on this, the spreadsheet will produce a graph showing the distribution of weighted (and unweighted) opinions across options, which is then used by the closers to assess rough consensus.
  • Because the options reflect escalating degrees of strictness, closers should try to determine the strictest or most lenient option that, together with every stricter or (as the case may be) more lenient option, has the support of, say, two thirds of weighted opinions. It's likely that any such option would approximate community consensus.

Any thoughts on this approach? It would come with the benefit of transparency via the spreadsheet. Sandstein 10:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• While I'm not a big fan of playing numbers with RfCs (they are always about ascertaining consensus after all), a statistical approach to RSN might be in order; the 1-4 scale seems to suggest so, albeit it not fitting with the concept of CONSENSUS as we currently have it. Either way, this could be a valuable metric for validation maybe? There's some drawbacks immediately visible: such as multiple options for different things, fractional answers (I saw one iirc) and lastly, comments with no indicated number. Will they be assessed as "NaN" or coerced to a value, is there a correct approach for the same, all of this is a pretty grey area. --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A potential issue with this scoring is that it seems to imply value in repetition of work. I did not include links to sources in my comment because it would be largely linking to material that other people already did (nevermind the countless times I and others have linked to them in past discussions). Do I have do go back and add a bunch of links already well discussed there to have my !vote count? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion - for panel considerations, I wanted to mention User:Atsme/Banners#The Closer's Barnstar which was inspired by Serial Number 54129. I looked to see what UTPs were linked to File:Closing-door.gif, and following are the recipients of the recognition so far: SilkTork, El C, JBW, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and mazca. Other excellent versatile closers who come to mind, Emir of Wikipedia, GRuban and Nyttend. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  Absolutely not. Sorry, if it is true that someone or other once decided I had made a good close of something or other and gave me a "barnstar", then I am glad to have been of service, but closing the monstrosity that is involved in this case is way outside the limits of what I am willing to undertake. JBW (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni comes to mind too, but judging by the message on his talk page I'd suspect he might say he doesn't have the time for this currently. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

  As I recall, Tony doesn't believe that a panel of closers is advantageous over a single closer. isaacl (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  No one else thinks that one of the discussion's vocal participants suggesting closers is problematic? I'm not impugning the integrity of the suggested closers but if one of them participates in the panel and it's closed in favor of this person who suggested that person, it could taint the close. 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Responding to ping. I've had a quick look (not read thoroughly and digested yet, but I got the gist) and would be OK with closing this or being part of a panel. SilkTork (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Sorry, I am unable to commit to this undertaking at the moment. Thanks for thinking of me, though, Atsme. Added: I say this with some regret, as I have never participated in a panel close before, so that could have been interesting. Oh well, maybe next time. El_C 15:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Suggestion: In addition to summarizing the community's consensus, please address the question of the scholarly consensus on the matter. Many sources have been cited throughout the discussion, and they present a more or less unified view on the core issues; whether the community follows or diverges from that view is an important question in and of itself, and so it would be useful to summarize it as part of the closing note. François Robere (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

*In my opinion, it should just be closed as "no consensus". The community doesn't yet know what to do with it. It would be hard to get a definitive ruling. New comments are still being added everyday, but we aren't moving towards any clear consensus.Talrolande (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Talrolande, I suspect the recent evidence of fake pictures may have nudged it over the line into consensus, but who knows. Guy (help!) 15:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC) I suggest flipping a coin. Then run. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Ahh, but who will judge the coin? And, who will bell the cat? O3000 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC) I hope there's RFCs being held for CNN & MSNBC news, of this nature as well. As much as Fox is pro-Republican, CNN & MSNBC are pro-Democrat. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC) And how is that relevant here? Don't relitigate the RfC here, start the RfC at the appropriate noticeboard if you want to. --qedk (t 愛 c) 19:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC) At least with CNN, that's laughable. They routinely let right-wing, left-wing, and conspiracy theorist nutjobs have time to equally spout crap. CNN is pro-ratings over anything else. That's why I haven't taken them seriously since the 90s. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC) HandThatFeeds, appears CNN took the "never bite the hand that feeds you" metaphor quite literally ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Just one note for the closers: the RfC is concerned with the actual news programs on Fox, which are listed at WP:FOXNEWS. Be on the lookout for !votes and discussion that conflate the news programs with the talk show pundits (e.g. Carlson and Hannity), which is not what the RfC is about. JOEBRO64 19:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC) Though one could address both, or simply reject the distinction; both cases should be counted. François Robere (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC) No. And again, let's not use this thread to relitigate the RfC, that's not what it's for, let the closers do their job. --qedk (t 愛 c) 22:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC) The RfC states: Which of the following best describes the reliability of the reporting of Fox News? (as separate from their cable pundits) (emphasis mine) JOEBRO64 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, plus "signup sheet"

So far it looks like the following individuals have said they would help with a close:

• Rosguill
• Lee Vilenski
• SilkTork
• Hobit (maybe, see below)

One more makes five, which (as an odd number) makes for good discussion. I know the RFC doesn't formally end until 7 July, but if a fifth doesn't volunteer by then I suppose I can step back and let the above trio deal with it. Primefac (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Since SilkTork withdrew (see below), for now we have:

• Rosguill
• Lee Vilenski
• Primefac

If everyone is fine with that, I suggest let's wrap this up? --qedk (t 愛 c) 08:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a good panel (it's not a problem if you join and it makes 4), seems like the issue of getting people to close is resolved. Good work on annoying asking people for this, folks! --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

What prcedents do we have for five person closes? Personally If we're going to be at three, and as an excercise is something beyond authority lending I think three is the right number, I would suggest that either Rosguill or Lee step out in favor of having Primefac and SilkTork as crats. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

+1 to Barkeep49's suggestion - 2 crats and coin toss for one of the other 2 volunteers. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Crats are good closers. As I said above, the fact that one of them was suggested by a vocal participant in the discussion is a little worrying from an optics point of view. I'm not saying that the closers will not act with integrity! Only that the situation opens the close up to be questioned. Is there someone with a different view in the discussion who could "sign off" on the choice? @QEDK:? @JzG:? Or someone else? 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6, not me, I have a distinct view on Fox. I don't want to get involved. Guy (help!) 08:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No precedent is required, and Primefac simply listed the first three editors to agree to be part of the panel, which is how it's done. If Primefac wants, we can still have 4 closers, it's not a big deal, no point to have anyone step down - at a later juncture, one of them can still back out without having the entire thing fall apart. I don't think the "crats are better closers" really applies here since RfAs and RfCs are completely different beasts. --qedk (t 愛 c) 05:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I asked about precedent because I think we need to be careful about panel closes. A panel is, in my view, appropriate here, heck there's a reason I said two of the closers should be crats. But we need to be careful about when we do panels and it would be a bad thing if the expectation became a five person panel. We have already seen an abundance of RfC challenges recently for one person closes, we don't need more or for them to expand in rare panel closes. So my question about precedent remains - if we've done this a few times before without slipping down the slope I'm less adamant about 3 vs 5 than if we're in uncharted or relatively territory. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6, did you forget to login? It shows you've only made 2 edits, both in this discussion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I've closed in a 3-person panel and 3 people seem to be a commonly acceptable panel size for community-wide RfCs (also seen 3+ but rarely). Panel closes are more common when contentious, I've seen a lot of big RfCs which are closed by one person, and that's most RfCs, whether "big" or not. Count I'm fine with, but 'cratship is not a suitable measure of RfC-closing experience (and not one we can speculate) since it's hard to quantify a user right as basis for a skill. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Atsme No, I didn't forget to log in. I've made these two (now three) edits, but I've been watching the rfc discussion and this one. You've been very vocal over there at the rfc and now you're suggesting closers for it without disclosing that you've posted in that discussion rather a lot. I think that looks bad and I think that those optics could taint the close. The rfc discussion is important and likely to gain attention outside Wikipedia and I think it's important that the optics look good. JzG and QEDK I wasn't suggesting that you close the discussion. I was suggesting that, to improve the optics of vocal participant Atsme putting forward closer suggestions, you "approve" Atsme's choice. If you and others don't think that's necessary, that's great. 2607:FEA8:1DA0:1DD6:8C96:BE13:3AB:91B6 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, IP 2607. For future reference, the bulk of my suggestions weren't actually arrived at by me specifically picking them. I simply pointed to what others thought of them based on them being recipients of the closer barnstar. I did specifically suggest 3 other editors who were not recipients of the closer barnstar, but they were simply suggestions to broaden the pool. I'm in no way involved in making the final decision regarding who comprises the panel so it should have no bearing on whether or not I participated in the RfC, which is a bit of a stretch, but there's nothing wrong with covering all the bases. Happy editing. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who replied, JzG was. As for "signing off", I don't think it's required because all the panel members are a) uninvolved with the RfC and, b) uninvolved with the topic area. That's all that's required (and I think it's a good panel, as I said before). --qedk (t 愛 c) 17:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, WP:DAILYMAIL was a 5-member close, though I don't think I've seen any others with that many (I've been on a few 3-person panels). Responding to another comment somewhere above, 3 or 5 is traditionally seen as better than 4 because it means there are no "ties" in opinions (made that mistake with a 2-person close once). Primefac (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• If a fifth is needed and it can wait at least until the weekend, I can be that 5th. I'm American, fairly moderate in my politics, and read a lot of US and international news. I've closed a fair number of contentious debates. I have looked over the discussion and feel it's something I can read and address. I'm a bit more concerned about finding consensus among 5 people and *that* taking a ton of time, but I'm willing to put in that time if needed. I have no problem with it being a close by 3 people however and am only stepping forward because right now we seem to have 4. If someone else is found to be a 5th, I'm more than happy to step back--I've got plenty of other things to do... Hobit (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  The RFC doesn't end until next week, so I'll put you down as a "maybe". Primefac (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• I hadn't realised that three panel members had already stepped forward before I was pinged. I'll withdraw - there's no need to over-complicate this with having four or five closers. SilkTork (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Mirrors

Are mirrors of Wikipedia supposed to include material from Wikipedia space? I thought they were limited to mainspace articles and talk pages. I ask because of this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Nothing at WP:REUSE or the WMF's TOU seems to limit what content can be reused as long as the licenses are followed properly for the reuse. --Masem (t) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

They are as long as they attribute us. Unfortunately, most people who run mirrors/copy from wikipedia into their blogspot don't attribute us, so time is wasted when searching for copyvios. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That site is a copyright violation of us, since I can't find where they attribute. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 03:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that site is likely a Meta:Live mirrors based on how quickly it updates. As others have said, sites are free to republish any content copyrighted by our editors contributed here, provided they comply with the licence terms which require (I'm simplifying here) attribution of the contributors (not of wikipedia itself) but also that the licence is listed in an appropriate manner. That site doesn't appear to comply with either requirement, as it says "© 2020 WordDisk" at the bottom with no mention of either the GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0 licence, one of which they will need to comply with, nor can I see any list of contributors or way to find one. Any contributor of copyrighted content could ask them to comply with their licence terms of they wanted to, and take further action if they failed to. The foundation could theoretically care because of the live mirror issue, but I think they've don't because the amount of network traffic tends to be small as these sites are all obscure. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Michael Kirk edit history

The edit history for Michael Kirk is nearly entirely deleted. In particular it is deleted from page creation in 2009 to 2017 with a 2017 edit stating it was removing copyrighted material and reverting back to the version on May 15, 2014. Yet everything from creation to May 15, 2014 is deleted. I have never seen such a censored and purged Wikipedia edit history.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) DonkeyPunchResin, according to the page logs, all of the edits were copyright violations of his PBS biography and had to be revision deleted. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

LuK3 thanks for the reply. That explanation doesn’t make sense to me as the 2017 edit states that due to copyright violations they were reverting back to the May 15, 2014 of the page. Thus, the May 15, 2014 version was not a copyright violation and all prior edits were probably not copyright vios either.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

DonkeyPunchResin, I was able to find that particular revision elsewhere, and it appears to largely be a copyvio of these three sources, so the revdel was correct. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 19:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you link to the revision you found elsewhere?DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No, linking to a copyvio is not allowed, per WP:LINKVIO. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The edit of 2017 doesn’t say that the page was reverted to the May 15, 2014 version, it says that ‘This version is based on revision 608622953 dated 00:50, May 15, 2014’, in other words, it was rewritten to comply with copyright. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I've examined the very first revision. It cites this as its only source, and it's a close paraphrase of it. So yes, it looks to me to have been a copyright violation all the way from then. DonkeyPunchResin, it's always worth asking an admin to check for you before crying "censorship". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • So one edit had a pretty close paraphrase of the source used to start the page ... ok. It still doesn’t explain why the May 15, 2014 version is censored (or deleted ... whatever) when that was the version reverted to after the copyright versions were deleted. And, ostensibly, some of the edits before that would not have been copyright vios and in fact nothing states they are copyright vios. Everything prior to May 15, 2014, is deleted with no reason given. And by censored I meant ... well just what I wrote. I’d never seen a page with that many edit history ‘deletions‘ and I thought it was very odd.DonkeyPunchResin (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • It has already been pointed out above that the article was not reverted to this version. This is simply a matter of complying with copyright law, not censorship. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, the May 15, 2014 version was not reverted to, and every revision that is now rev-deleted (before, after, and including that one) contains copyright violations. And re "I’d never seen a page with that many edit history ‘deletions‘ and I thought it was very odd": If you think something is very odd, just ask in a civil manner rather than throwing around snide accusations of censorship. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

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

Administrator changes

Malcolmxl5

John • TheCoffee • Tim!

Creffett → GeneralNotability

DeltaQuad → AmandaNP

CheckUser changes

Bbb23

Interface administrator changes

TonyBallioni

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is in progress to remove the T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) speedy deletion criterion.

Technical news

• Protection templates on mainspace pages are now automatically added by User:MusikBot II (BRFA).

Arbitration

• Following the banning of an editor by the WMF last year, the Arbitration Committee resolved to hold an RfC regarding on-wiki harassment. The RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC and is open to comments from the community.
• The Medicine case was closed, with a remedy authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Request for review of my AfD close

In the course of closing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 19#2020 Formula One pre-season testing, I discovered that a 2nd AfD was running concurrently with the DRV of the first one. I administratively closed the 2nd AfD. Not surprisingly, my action there has been questioned. I request a review of my own actions; was I correct in closing the 2nd AfD?. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, the closure of the AFD was well meant but borne out of overconcern. The DRV was technicalyy still open, but had clearly run its course. No active discussion was taking place anymore. Therefore the second AFD could have been allowed to continue, per WP:NOTAGAIN.Tvx1 15:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Unequivocal yes you were correct from my end, even though I was somewhat involved as a DRV participant and then an AfD pinger. WP:RENOM states Relisting immediately may come across as combative. Immediate second round participants are less likely to listen, and are more likely to dig in their heels. You may be right, but the audience won’t be receptive. The other participants very likely will be thinking that you have not been listening to them. There's no formal rule against it, but I don't think I've ever seen an article sent to a second AfD while a DRV is running. I know we're not overly process-orientated, but that seems basic, and the comments at the second AfD were either "yes, delete" or a dig-in-the-heels why-are-we-doing-this-again. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• Those that were agreeing with the nomination were not simply stating "yes, delete". They were actually builiding a proper case with proper guideline or policy based arguments. The few that actually stated keep during the second AFD did not bring any such argument. They did not do anyhting to demonstrate the merit of the article. Note that durinf the DRV many of its contributors mentioned the weakness of the keep arguments presented during the first AFD as well.Tvx1 17:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• Well regardless of the DRV it isn't appropriate to send an article to AfD less than a week after the previous one closed, with no new arguments. WP:RENOM suggests waiting for a much longer period, a month or two. Funnily enough the second AfD was turning into a fight about process instead of the discussion of the article's merits that we actually want, so it would have been of limited value anyway. I get that the people who supported deleting this the first time round weren't happy with the outcome of the first AfD, but the way to deal with that is not to keep rerunning discussions until they come up with the "correct" result. Hut 8.5 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree that the process wasn't perfect. But if you put the generall process aside for a moment and approach this specific case with common sense, you'll see that there was a clear preference to delete this article. The DRV, while technically still open, had run its course and was no longer actually active. Thus I question how Wikipedia is helped in any way here by blocking the deletion of this article purely on procedural grounds, even though the community's preference is clear, and thus postponing the inevitable by a month or two?Tvx1 17:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

• The previous AfD was closed as no consensus, a result which was just endorsed at DRV. So no, there is no clear preference to delete the article. Hut 8.5 06:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Over the two AFD's there is. And multiple participants in the DRV noted the clear weakness of the keep arguments in the first AFD.Tvx1 12:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Clearly the right decision, but why are we reviewing an AfD close on AN?—S Marshall T/C 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Because it was an administrative action I believe. It was not actually an assessment of the discussion.Tvx1 11:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "UK" from location field in infoboxes

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

---

Is there a policy regarding the UK not being necessary in location field for companies, organisations etc. and that the constituent nation i.e. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is sufficient?

For example I changed the location on Deltic Group from:

| location = [[Milton Keynes]], UK to |location = [[Milton Keynes]], England, UK Edit link: [100]

Subsequently user User:IceWelder removed the UK from the location from their edit:

| location = [[Milton Keynes]], England, UK to |location = [[Milton Keynes]], England Edit link: [101]

There a few other articles where this has happened: Rockstar North, Denki. Rather than get into an edit war I instigated a discussion about it and we couldn't come to an agreement on this point. I suggested it might be best to get advice/help from the Administator noticeboards. Discussion link: [102]

Conversely, the user User:Beagel has insisted that United Kingdom be added in full for the Vattenfall UK article in their edit summaries: [103] and [104]

|| location =London, England, United Kingdom

So its all a bit confusing!

I've edited quite a number of articles in the format |location = Place, Nation, UK without any issues.

Some clarification on this would be most welcome. Angryskies (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• No, you want advice from WT:MOS, not an administrative noticeboard, as no administrative action is required. This can be closed now. All the best! ——Serial ^# 11:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Whoops! I'll post over there, thanks! Angryskies (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Angryskies  :) ——Serial ^# 11:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

There are threads started in May 2020 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure which need to be closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds about normal, actually. If anything, it is an improvement due to a flurry of activity lately. El_C 16:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter appeal, please lift COVID ban before July 8, no real offense

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

---

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1039 —> Proposal (FriendlyRiverOtter)

I’ve successfully edited COVID articles since mid-March. And not a single case of, ‘Oh, I’m going to self-righteously do it anyway.’ Nope, not one.

Nay an edit war to be found.

The whole issue stems from Talk pages. Frankly, I think the problem is that I responded to admins as if we were equal citizens. At least half a dozen different admins made a statement to the effect, ‘not getting the message’ or ‘need to send a message’ or similar. Wow. Watch even one mob movie and that’s a common refrain, as if a clear inferior is not picking up on a hierarchy.

So, the standard is that one must immediately kowtow to an admin?

I hope not, but it sure looks that way. My responses are easily above a threshold of politeness and civility. From my long sports site experience, if someone makes a reasoned argument, I try to make a response in turn, time permitting. I don’t even stack responses to one person when I think of new things. I think it’s just the fact that I made responses at all.

Several people implied that I tend to write long. That one I can take to heart (sports site vice!). I even closed an RfC well before 30 days as a show of good faith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coronavirus_disease_2019&diff=prev&oldid=960776478
It wasn’t going anywhere, but it does illustrate that you can work with me.

But about a handful of admins wanted to squelch the very content of what I was saying, which is keeping with the header of MEDRS stating “common sense” and “occasional exceptions” and in keeping with our 5th Pillar, that we might want to consider also using primary sources for a new disease like COVID-19 and how we might do so.

So, it’s the content of the speech itself . . .

Well, first off, I think we’d owe an apology to the Chinese government, for all they’ve done is to follow the very human norm in place for generations and generations — hey, if it’s troublesome speech, we’re going to squelch it down. This new-fangled approach of trying mightily to draw a distinction between speech and conduct, well, we still don’t really know how it’s going to fully play out. But I think we should try it here in Wiki.

I might also use the analogy of religion, that if I were a Christian, Muslim, Baha’i, Hindu, etc, I think I could still make positive edits on articles on religion. And/or if I was in a workplace, I could certainly hold in my mind, how I think things should go and the idea that such is currently a minority position.

And maybe it takes a sports site person to say, Hey, you folks are at risk of losing good editors. And an additional thing regarding this business of ‘need to send a message,’ it’s one admin talking to another admin about an editor in the third person, when that editor is right there. And you could just ask them, hey, what do you see the problem as, and what do you see an interim improvement as?

The missed opportunity might be coaching up editors to the B+ level. And usually, a large amount of B+ work handily beats a small amount of A work.

On June 4, I offered:
“So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?”
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960714376

And I was making constructive COVID edits right until hours of the ban coming down: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_New_York_City&diff=prev&oldid=961461726

I ask that the ban please be lifted.

And whether it’s lifted or not, I plan to continue as a good citizen, primarily working on my edits, but occasionally and constructively talking about what I see as systemic problems or issues. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• It's going to expire in 9 days, why waste an AN thrashing on 9 days? @Guerillero: who implemented the tban. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, 9 days is 9 days, and with COVID heating up, I find myself itching to get back. In addition, if some admins are worried about their fellow guild of admins coming on too strong and driving off good editors, mine’s probably a pretty good case to look at. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say pay the $2 (i.e. wait the 9 days). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, if you withdraw this now, you can go back to the article in 9, closer to 8 now, days. If you leave this open, I'd say there is a 50/50 shot the tban would be extended. Cut your losses please. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Sorry, no. A long rambling message is not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Given that this appeal seems to consist of attacking everyone who had a part in the sanction, no. And if you continue to agitate for the use of non-MEDRS sources for Covid articles when the ban expires, expect a longer one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Oh, and I must add that you're being a little selective when you quote yourself as saying "So, if I agree, no tricks, to cool it on Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019 regarding speaking in favor of either preprints or primary sources, other than my own single RfC which is still open?". Your actual subsequent agreement was "I agree to cool it regarding promoting primary sources on COVID talk pages for one month (and probably longer!)". The "one month (and probably longer!)" weasel clause means your actual commitment expires at the same time as your block, and so is meaningless. This appeal is almost a textbook example of not getting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

There were two statements I made — the above one in my original post, and a second about seven hours later in which I also stated I had closed and archived my RfC, as well as the part which you quote, as well as my plans to continue positive edits in the articles themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=960781261
And I did make positive COVID edits in our articles for several more days until the ban was imposed, such this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_pandemic_in_Italy&diff=prev&oldid=961297979
about schools in Italy. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any encouragement to extend the ban (we have a bad habit of doing that to appeals that don't really warrant them, poorly written as it is). However you attack a wide group of admins (with the likelihood it's them, not you, going down the bigger the pool), and fail to show clear, succinct, evidence that it's warranted. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: thank you for taking a moderate position, and I know I have not made things easy for you. Yes, I have rather put myself in a box. If you could suggest a resolution which preserves respect on all sides, I’d probably be open to that. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just as a point of fact: I was one of the editors who called for a topic ban, and I am not an admin. And the opening statement doesn't fill me with confidence about what will happen when the ban is lifted, because FriendlyRiverOtter is still arguing that the words "common sense" and "occasional exceptions" mean that WP:MEDRS can be ignored in the one article where it is the most important, because there's so much misinformation and premature information flying around in this area. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: why would MEDRS regarding Coronavirus be more important than MEDRS regarding heart attack or stroke, for example? (And people have delayed going to the emergency room with these symptoms precisely because of a fear of Coronavirus.) And I don’t think I’ve said, can ignore MEDRS. I think I’ve said, because of the header, carefully and judiciously . . and there’s a big difference. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I answered that question in my last sentence. The word "because" is a big clue that a reason follows. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• File this under the list of "Things you really don't want to say to have your TBAN lifted". RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a chance you made a mistake in your comment? Did you actually intend to ask for your topic ban to be extended rather than lifted? Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Is there a WP:HELLNO for rationales like this? There ought to be one.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 15:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Quite possibly the worst appeal I have ever seen. This actually argues for an extension, not a lifting of the ban. Guy (help!) 15:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I speak for myself, and also for fellow editors who have been driven off. And I’m making the rational criticism that in the absence of conduct issues, an edit ought not be banned for speech. And even more specifically, when admins use the mob-movie language of ‘send a message’ or ‘not getting a message’ or similar, there is probably a rush to judgment and/or rush to punishment.
In fact, I’d like to go back six months on the Incidents archives and see how common an issue this is. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, fill your boots, just don't expect anyone to take your analysis seriously if it's filtered through the set of assumptions we see at the top of this section. Guy (help!) 16:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Need to extend the TBAN Attacking other users while not addressing one's own behavior? Brilliant! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Given the response above mine, user is here to "right great wrongs"? Perhaps a TBAN is not sufficient. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: if I were criticizing the actions of one particular admin, that gets tricky. But if I’m talking about a common practice, as I am, that’s not an attack. Or let me ask you. What would you accept as a constructive way to put forward rational criticism of the system? (and I did acknowledge the fault of sometimes writing long.) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (6 month COVID ban) Friendly River Otter

Given the foregoing, propose extending TBAN from COVID-19 related pages to 6 months from the close of this thread. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support (second choice). Guy (help!) 15:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice behind the proposal below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second choice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support if the indefinite ban proposed below doesn't go through. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support only as a second option if the indefinite TBAN is not implemented. Grandpallama (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Second choice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support - All you had to do was wait a little over a week and the TBAN would have expired. If you are willing to stir drama right now, then I doubt it will be different when you return to editing the topic area. Darkknight2149 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (second choice) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2

Before anyone responds to the above proposal, I propose extending the TBAN from COVID-19 related pages to indefinite, appealable in six months here at AN. We've had far too much disruption from those who won't listen to the way the Community has mandated these articles be sourced, and it needs to stop. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). Guy (help!) 15:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice). OK. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The diatribes above clarify that this editor has no intention of following consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. The level of past disruption and the promise here of future disruption should not be ignored. Grandpallama (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support the appeal shows very clearly that the editor doesn't understand the issues which lead to the ban. You can be disruptive without edit warring or being uncivil. Dealing with situations like this is a timesink for the type of editor we want to keep around. Hut 8.5 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support Sadly. Part of having a block or a banned removed , from what I'm reading , is having the banned individual show an understanding of why this happened, at the bare minimum and I don't see that at all. Necromonger...ALL Lives matter 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I think this was a thinly veiled attempt to continue to push their cause under the guise of a request to lift their ban early. Seems way too convenient. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support I wouldn't even say thinly veiled. I'd say this was as blatant as it gets.--WaltCip-(BLM!Resist The Orange One) 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Boing!'s rationale. I've looked at the other talk page posts the user has made since the ban, as well as their meandering reasonings above, and it is the same kind of disruption all over again. --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The only cause I’m supporting right now is anti-bullying. Which I recognize immediately from my sports site background (although this is much more gentile and I thank you!) Yep, 10+ persons responding to thoughtful and rational criticism, and basically saying, this person’s no good, get rid of them, that’s bullying.
My main point is that when we jump to “need to send a message,” we jump almost all of the way to a pro-punishment position. And I maintain that that’s a pretty valid point.
By the way, this is why many persons in Third World countries don’t stand up for their legal rights. Because if they insist on rights they technically have, the system will up the ante.
So, we at Wikipedia believe in a democratic model, a de-centralized model. We believe the consensus process is a great way to have more discussion with better listening . . . . . except when it counts and then we don’t. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) FriendlyRiverOtter please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY regarding your assertion that the community believes in a democratic model. Folly Mox (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are oppressed as if you are living in the Third World, and we are all bullies. Keep it up, and I predict someone will become exasperated enough to propose that banning you simply from a topic isn't enough. Grandpallama (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Geez Louise, you brought this on yourself with an unnecessary and bellicose appeal of a sanction that was going to expire in mere moments. You could have sat back, kept your mouth shut, and it would all be over, but no, you had to mount your soapbox and speak up for all "oppressed" editors everywhere - what a complete crock! Keep up this mode of behavior and, sooner or later, you'll be site banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not bullying, it's the community enforcing the sourcing requirements mandated by consensus for Covid-19 articles. And it's not "thoughtful and rational criticism" that led to where we are now, it's your belligerent, soapboxing, refusal to accept that consensus. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support, with proposal 1 as second choice. Miniapolis 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support (first choice) - The "appeal" really only makes sense when interpreted as a battleground tactic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support – "I warned you, but did you listen to me? Oh, no, you knew it all, didn't you? Oh, it's just a harmless little bunny, isn't it? Well, it's always the same. I always tell them...." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support FriendlyRiverOtter displays a range of attitudes which tend to cause disruption on Wikipedia: self-righteousness, lack of understanding and self-awareness, a desire to attack others, long self-indulgent speeches, a total lack of clue, and an outspoken negative attitude toward admins - any one of those would be a cause for concern, but a combination of all of them is rather worrying. Given the circumstances I agree that FriendlyRiverOtter needs to show some understanding of why they were topic banned before lifting the ban. SilkTork (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: “desire to attack”? I said that this business of “need to send message” is both common and a rush to judgment. It’s certainly not an attack on any particular member. In fact, I’d said bringing up a common practice is at times really helpful for a group.
And “self-righteousness.” Checkmate. That’s the kind of thing, once raised, that anything I say is taken simply as evidence.
Would recent good edits on 2028 Summer Olympics help? I thought the most likely resolution would have been, Okay, you’ve had your say, so be it, yeah, what you bring up might be an issue, we’ll take it under advisement. And outside chance that I’ll help someone else down the road. But, um, . . . obviously not! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support Best option for a case where no evidence of understanding the problem is seen. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

YARFCCR: Regarding Joe Biden's fingers

• I'm sorry to bring yet another close review here. It's because I've been slowly clearing the backlog at ANRFC, and the stuff that had been unclosed for a long time was mostly pretty contentious. Anyway, a few days ago I made this close, and an editor has very politely and respectfully indicated on my talk page that she feels I might have been mistaken. I invite community scrutiny and, if I have erred, I'll be delighted to self-revert.—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, having only read your statement, the discussion here and on your talk page let me suggest that you are, perhaps, too quick to ask for review of your own closes. As neither of the reviews you recently launched attracted much attention may I suggestion that when you think you've done it right it might be appropriate to let the challenging party choose whether to put it up for review or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I might be wrong, though. I've closed a contentious, high-visibility discussion, and if a good faith editor feels I've made a mess of it then I think it's right to ask for more eyes on it. We've got far too many discussion closers who respond to approaches on their talk page like they're infallible.—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  You know, S Marshall, since people are apparently challenging these closes partly because they're non-admin-closes, we could get rid of that issue; why don't you try again for admin? Our BLP and flagged-revisions policies are rather stable now, so you wouldn't likely get complaints about that like you did last time, and if you're going around making closes and routinely getting sustained when people object, that's a really solid indication that you'd be trustworthy as an admin. Nyttend backup (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody in 2020 has said they're challenging my closes based on whether I'm a sysop, and least of all Atsme, who I've always found immensely pleasant and respectful. When people challenge my closes it's based on their perception that I've misread the consensus or got something substantive wrong. And if being a sysop would have a chilling effect on those approaches, then maybe the difficult cases shouldn't be closed by sysops.

  The beauty of Wikipedia is that we don't do credentialism. Whether you're in a content dispute or a discussion close, you're expected to be approachable, talk to others, be ready to show your working, and submit to the consensus.

  At the time of my RFA, which was eleven years ago, I was still young enough to want to climb ladders. I'm now pushing fifty and I no longer default to ladder-climbing. There is a figure for which I'd go through the week of bullshit and character assassination from the peanut gallery. It's not a small figure. You could start a Gofundme, I suppose?—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Well, most of the time I see someone challenging a non-admin closure, part or all of the challenge is basically "A non-admin shouldn't have performed this close; it's too contentious". If you're not getting that kind of reaction, that's fine, but not what I was expecting. Nyttend backup (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  S Marshall, good close, and IMO it's always reasonable to invite review in contentious cases. Guy (help!) 23:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  I am unaware of any conscientious close which is not challenged to some degree. Sometimes the challenge brings up good points and is accommodated. Other (often?) times the closer stands by their close. That's all as it should be. If S Marshall is going to continue to close contentious RfCs, and I have seen nothing to suggest they shouldn't, having them regularly bring their closes to RfC, rather than coming from someone truly challenging it, is not a good use of the community's time. Peer review is great but three such peer reviews in just over three weeks strikes me as a bit much. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  You'd get fewer S Marshall close reviews if there were more people going through the RfC close backlog doing the heavy lifting. Just a thought.—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  If this is directed specifically at me I'll note that I spent time yesterday on closes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you! That's a big help, and not just in the labour of closing; it's also making me feel less like King Canute.  :)—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I think this should be overturned. The close did not take into account the relative strengths of the rationales. For example, arguments for UNDUE were successful countered by arguments made later in the RfC. Also, at least one of the No !votes are actually yes votes. For example, BetsyRMadison argues that if this is included the 2019 allegation of neck touching should be included. The funny thing is the 2019 neck touching allegation is in the lead with detail. This means that BetsyRMadison is not opposed to the penetration is mentioned since the neck touching is. Almost all the No !votes falter to make a good policy based argument. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)\

(comment) To: C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) - You misrepresented my "No, the lead should not include" vote, please try not misrepresenting what I say or how I vote on an RfC in the future. The timestamp of my No vote is: "12:47, 26 April 2020." On that date, at that time here is what the lead looked like, "In March 2020, Tara Reade, a former Senate staff assistant of Joe Biden, alleged that Biden sexually assaulted her in a Capitol Hill office building in 1993. A Biden spokesperson said that the allegation was false." My "No" vote has not changed from when I first voted on the RfC. I am still a firm "No." BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Perfectly fine close given the circumstances. Not sure why people would think we would put an unproven allegation like that in the lead anyway but there you go. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Ha I completely missed this was the specific sexual assault article rather than his bio. God we have some crap tabloid stuff. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• The interpretation of the discussion's outcome as "no consensus" was in my view the most reasonable view, and the assertion that this results in a return to the status quo ante is correct. The subsequent analysis of what exactly the status quo ante was is also spot on. There is therefore no reason to reverse this close. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse.

It was a good close. Failing that, it was most certainly "good enough" a close.

From a Wikipedia perspective, I believe the close, if it erred, correctly erred on the conservative side, which is to not include details of allegations. This is straight WP:BLP. It is also highly desirable for Wikipedia to keep out of the newspapers, especially on current politics. Wikipedia must not become the source of newspaper information on details of Biden's sexual assault allegation, and there is considerable danger of this with the story going cold, and some people possibly wanting to revive it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, it is false that not mentioning exactly what "sexual assault" means is the more favorable and more conservative option, BLP-wise. The lead should be able to stand as mini-article. If a reader just read the lead section, they would be left to assume that Joe Biden raped her in the "traditional" sense, that he penetrated her with his penis. The allegation is nothing close to that. Reade only alleges that he reached under her close and penetrated her with his finger. Leave that out actually leads to a conclusion that is worse. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The wording in question during the RfC is still present in the body, at Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Sexual assault allegation. Should the detail be in the lede? The version under discussion had the lede sentence referenced to five sources, three of which made no mention of this detail, two did. There are a number of style problems here, not content. It is tabloid style to lede with salacious details. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If you really think the detail belongs in the lede, I suggest that you would do better to focus on a better styled lede than to re-litigate the edits of 23 April 2020. The RfC close does not lock content in stone, but is a stepping stone to move forward from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

It is not tabloid-y to describe the allegation the lead of the article about the allegation. That some "think of the children" argument. There is no other way to say that she alleges he put his finger in her vagina than to come out and just say it. Because that is the allegation, the whole point of the article. However, none of that is relevant to this closure review. The closer still failed to account for the strengths of the arguments. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As for "The RfC close does not lock content in stone", I tried it this way. Let's see how long it takes before someone cites this RfC to revert my new attempt to describe the allegation in clinical terms. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Special:Diff/963893057. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Noting here that I've partially read through the RFC and the close, and I'm uncomfortable with some aspects of the close, and also with obnoxious conduct some of of the RFC participants that possibly warrants intervention in its own right. It's late here so I'll look again tomorrow and see if I have anything more specific to say. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• Endorse your close and SmokeyJoe makes very good points. BetsyRMadison (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, maybe try engaging further on your talk page substantively before bringing the next WP:CLOSECHALLENGE to the admin boards. As already mentioned, once a week may be too much. I realize these are contentious closes, but to use myself as an example, sometimes, they simply end like this. El_C 20:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm starting to wonder whether there should be an RfC review page, analagous to Deletion Review.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe. But attempting a substantive discussion with the closer first on their user talk page is an imperative I'd like to see apply to pretty much to any CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 13:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pleasantly surprised to see how thoughtful the discussion between yourself and the person on your talk was. Not common you see objections worded so well. I don't think your closure went beyond the scope of the RfC. Respondents, myself included, did not appear to pay particular attention to the specific wording presented in the question, and rather focused on the idea of including further information on the nature of the sexual offence. I believe the scope of your closure correctly addressed the issue. As for scrutiny on whether the decision was correct, I have a bias in the matter, as a respondent, so my opinion would not be particularly helpful. By the way, the reasoning in your non-obvious closures from your RfC close log are a pleasure to read. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thank you for the kind words regarding my request to S Marshall. A review of his close tells us that he invested a great deal of thought and time into the process and clearly earns our respect and understanding. S Marshall is an excellent editor, and there is no doubt that he wants what is best for the project. We aren't always on the same page, but I would certainly support him in an RfA. My biggest concern over the close was more process-related in that it went beyond the RfC statement which focused only on the graphic details of the assault, not to exclude all mention of it. Another concern I have is NPOV, and the fact that there is no mention of anything related to his controversial behavior in the lead despite it being a high profile controversy that belongs in the lead per our PAGs. The absence of it drew a bit of attention from media per the following examples: Real Clear Politics, The Atlantic, Daily Kos (not reliable but probably read by people who read WP). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
• Like everyone else, I would encourage S Marshall to become an admin. With that said, I have to say I find Atsme's objections to the close persuasive and think we ought to overturn it, taking into consideration the relative strengths of the arguments. As at least one editor above missed, the article in question here is Joe Biden sexual assault allegation, not Joe Biden, and to leave out a basic description of the titular allegation as UNDUE, as many no !votes argued, frankly stretches the bounds of credulity. Similarly, the "it's gross" !votes pretty clearly went against the WP:NOTCENSORED policy. The count was already leaning toward include (18-12, by Atsme's count), so after taking into consideration the above, it seems there is a consensus to include. Regards, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)