Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive355

Music (2021 film) editing

I've blocked filer HumanxAnthro for 72 hours for disruptive editing in this thread. When he returns, he is welcome to pursue dispute resolution over this minor content dispute, although I would recommend instead finding something else to edit about. Almost seven million articles, maybe a billion issues to fix across them. Is this really the hill to die on? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:COMPETENCE, attempted WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:GAMING of WP:CIVILITY policy to uphold corrosive edits from Ssilvers, also InvadingInvader and Nyxaros, one edit bordering on WP:VANDALISM On Music (2021 film), Ssilvers is clearly attempting to maintain WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, reverting obviously contributive edits with bogus rationales. I first encountered this problem as early as 2022, when all I did was began merging opinions of critics together so that it did not look like a quote farm. They reverted with the following edit summary: "non-neutral changes. WP:N". Read my edit for yourself. What was "non-neutral" about simply re-writing the section into something besides quotes? What did notability have to do with it? This is a critical reception section of an article about a film whose notability has already been well-established. They have continued to reinforce their power like this on the article with this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably others I did not catch when reading the edit history. Like the example I provided, these edits are all reversions to the addition of sourced content, done under disingenuous or unrelated summaries. Sometimes they inform the user to go to the talk page to begin discussion, ignoring the obvious reason the users do not that usually, when a discussion starts on the talk page, nobody joins in and nothing gets done. Believe me, I tried getting something resolved on the cast section of It (2017 film), and I got no responses, meaning the conversation went nowhere. This, plus the existence of WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, puts users in an inescapable position where they cannot do anything about the editor's poorly-justified edits. Which brings me to why I am starting a section here. This came to a peak when I adjusted the starring field of the infobox to reflect THAT of the poster, which any experienced film article editor on this site knows is a guideline set by Template:Infobox film to follow and thus approve. No experienced editor would seriously suggest it is debatable for consensus from other users to be needed... except Ssilvers and a couple of other editors. Ssilvers, Nyxaros (diff because I am linking user name), and InvadingInvader (diff because I am linking username) all promoted a reversion that border on WP:VANDALISM, under unsubstantiated-with-guidelines "I-personally-think", WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales that no one editing film articles would consider genuinely. Nonetheless, they told me to "constructively discuss if they disagree rather than shut down", as if breaking a set-in-stone, fricking well-established guideline was disagreeable. When I brought the starring field back to how it objectively should be, I put these editors in their place: "Users, there is NOTHING disagreeable about guidelines of Template pages. Template:Infobox film explicitly states to "use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." Guess what, all of these names are here, and the guideline says NOT to deviate from that billing. I am not wasting any more time on WP:COMPETENCE issues from you people. Ssilvers reverted again with this: "I strongly disagree with this. Use the Talk page if you wish to achieve a consensus to add these supporting players. They do not "star" in the film." Disagree with policy everyone has to follow? No way would I surrender to these users' ignorance and breaking of policy and legitimize this topic in the way some Holocaust denier would suggest it is debatable that the Holocaust happened. So Ssilvers, who led this effort to keep the starring field unrepresentative and guideline-violating, was provided a warning by me to restore it as it should or I am bringing the issue to admins. They reverted my warning with the following cop-out: "Use the article talk page, not mine." So guess was, Ssilvers, you are going to the principal's office for your misbehavior. All necessary diffs are linked for the admins to read for themselves, and all users will be notified on the talk pages. I am demanding at least a few-day block for what they are trying to do, and I hope the article is free from tyranny. It is disgusting to see a user with some leverage from writing featured content abuse WP:CIVILITY like this. Thanks. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Whew. There's a lot to unpack here. To start with the easy bit, template documentation is "essay-class", not a guideline. It's advice, sometimes widely-followed, sometimes completely ignored or even contrary to actual usage; and regardless of how widely-followed it is, it can always be overridden by a local consensus. Second, this is more suited for WP:AN/I than AN proper. Beyond that... I haven't looked at the whole history here, but I can tell you that AN(/I) reports that are written like this never go anywhere good for the filer. In frank terms, you've written a much much better argument for why you should be sanctioned than for why anybody else should be. Maybe, in fact, the others have done something wrong, but it's definitely not coming across in what you've written. I'd suggest withdrawing this, taking a day or several to make this conflict feel a bit less raw and emotional, and then, if you still feel there are ownership issues such as to require admin attention, write a concise paragraph or two at AN/I explaining the issue in a calm manner. (Although what I'd really suggest is taking that day or several and then just letting it go—but I appreciate that's hard to agree to in the heat of the moment.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Well said. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC) How would this be moved to WP:AN/I? I am still suffering brain fog and forgot there was a subpage for Incidents, so that mistake was accidental. To get back to the discussion, With the upmost respect, I feel like I have expressed the evidence and cited appropriate WP pages without any emotions seeping through, so I am not seeing how I am sanctionable here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Also, how often is the "sometimes completely ignored" scenario? Because it has only happened to films with posters that did not have starring billing in my experience, which are few. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC) I don't think that I have played enough of a role to justify sanctions, and I was not notified previously on this matter nor tagged in a reversion. While I understand why @HumanxAnthro could see that I'm "enforcing" a POV, I restored the two names in the cast as a suggested compromise between the people who are in favor of fewer names and the people who prefer a larger chunk of the cast in the infobox. The primary summary of the reversion cited by HumanxAnthro is actually to remove MOS:COMMENT violations, in which invisible comments should not be used to push one version of an article over another. I've worked with Ssilvers before, most prominently in the Infobox debate for the Ziegler sisters' articles. I don't doubt that she contributes in good faith to the encyclopedia, but I also do believe that some behavior can be snappy. I have noticed quite a few MOS:COMMENT violations from her based out of when I have encountered her on Wikipedia. I could see as to how and why she could use her featured articles to leverage and engage in WP:OWN. Does her conduct? need a warning? Probably. I used to be kind of snappy myself, but I personally try to avoid and correct when I or other editors notice. But does Ssilver's conduct warrant sanctions? Frankly, I don't know. I shouldn't be the one who has to decide on whether to sanction Ssilvers. I don't want to either. I think I would be biased in deciding based on my previous infobox debates with her, and that alone would disqualify me because of how intense infobox debates can be, regardless of how much I try to suppress my own bias. Regardless, I do think that the idea of characterizing my edits as WP:VANDALISM is very inappropriate. I could see how it could be disruptive, but given that I did not have appropriate context of the scenario nor engaged in further related reversions, aside from removing MOS:COMMENT violations, I don't see why I should be sanctioned. A warning or talk page request tagging me should have been made first. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC) I notified you on the talk page [1] User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC) That notification was a notification of me being on an administrator's noticeboard. You went straight to the principal's office before attempting to give me a formal warning or anything. Not cool, man. It's not like I'm deleting the main page. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Ssilvers was the one warned cause they initiated and upheld the article in its current state the most, so I assumed good faith and suggested you were willing to follow Ssilvers vision of the page for their longer and extensive experience and thus believed in them more. The discussion is mainly on Ssilvers, not you and Nyxaros, so I am only hoping action is taken on Ssilvers. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC) In other words, you were not being warned. It is just a requirement to notify when a user is mentioned in a discussion on this page. Also, are you not notified when your user page is linked? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC) I didn't get any notification except for the AN discussion and the relevant talk page notification. I have gotten linked before when I was linked in Edit Summaries. If you really only mean to target Ssilvers, consider editing the original thread to cross me and Nyxaros out as your current phrasing seems to suggest that I and Nyxaros should be blocked. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC) While I was writing the above, Tamzin left her comment, which I am only now seeing. I think that the best recourse of action would be to remove this from AN and refrain from posting it to AN/I. Consider starting a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. That way, you can achieve a much stronger consensus. If you end up losing the debate, it's probably then time to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass before you risk further bludgeoning the process. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC) "If you end up losing the debate". See, right there is the WP:COMPETENCE issue that led me to create this section. There are aspects about Wikipedia that are not debatable, like the fact that it is an encyclopedia and should be written as such. If I contested that, would you being willing to respectfully disagree and go onto a talk page to have a discourse? Not meeting WP:COMPETENCE has led to blocks of users for a very good reason: it is disruptive to the editing process and the right thing to do is to not respectfully converse with them, even if they are acting in good faith. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC) While I could see your accusations as having merit when it comes to Ssilvers, not me. I think that you should have discussed it with me on my talk page individually first before you went straight to ANI with regard to me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC) To star in a film means to have a leading role, and for the infobox to say that someone had a leading role, the body of the article should contain a statement at least resembling that. The guideline for infoboxes is MOS:INFOBOX, not the template documentation. "Copy blindly whatever is on the poster" does not make the cut as serious guidance for how to edit an article. (Maybe useful for an infobox-heavy film stub which shouldn't be a thing in the first place.) Those actors which you added in your diff are only mentioned once in the article, as part of a list of names with no further information. Are those key facts, in the words of the guideline? Telling you to discuss it was fine. Even if what you thought was a guideline were an actual guideline you should still generally discuss, and your position being consistent with the guideline just makes it much more likely that your idea is the one that will be implemented, but it is not an absolute guarantee (see WP:GUIDES: Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.). Not wanting to discuss a content dispute that relates to one article on user talk and directing someone to the article talk page is an option. When discussions don't attract much outside participation, and don't go the way you'd prefer, there is waiting and hoping, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC... But I don't see much in the way of your talk page participation in the first place. About other diffs, Ssilvers reverted the following changes: "lambasted by critics" (is that how you would put it?), "extremely negative" (is that really the best way to put it? go and prove it on the talk page), overlinking, someone adding redundant prose only about the Golden Raspberry Awards (worst film "awards") and not about the Golden Globe awards (when both are already covered), "She also received backlash for how she initially responded to this criticism, particularly tweets extolling her own casting of neuroatypical and trans actors" (...). Your big reception rewrite was reverted; summarizing reviews is great but you also added "Music was despised by professional film critics in general"; is the word "despised" really what we'd go with? I don't know, maybe. Talk? Go incremental? WP:FEET? WP:BRB? Please give yourself some time and rethink everything. —Alalch E. 23:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC) No... NO! Do not legitimize with Ssilvers is pulling it. That MOS:INFOBOX quote is vague and would not mean what you are trying to make it mean. Do you want me to report you for WP:COMPETENCE and WP:GAME for enabling another user doing the same? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC) I am not screwing around here! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Don't report please, I will remove the quote immediately. Here, done.—Alalch E. 00:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Fair enough. Still skeptical about the comments towards the diffs, though. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC) How on earth is the policy quote you bullied Alalch E into removing [2] a misrepresentation of policy? How is this: .. the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. ... wherever possible... exclude any unnecessary content A substantial misrepresentation of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content. Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function. Why on earth are you making ridiculous and completley baseless threats to get Alalch blocked for that quote? How does their comment illustrate any kind of WP:CIR or WP:GAMING behaviour? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC) I just warned her to not enable the disruptive behavior Ssilvers got a section for. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) She tried to some of the actors as "not key facts" for only being mentioned in prose one, which is disingenuous as that is not what the Infobox doc says. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC) @HumanxAnthro: Now I'm going to be a bit more direct. Your above comments are harassment of an editor who is giving a good-faith opinion on a dispute you are party to. This is disruptive editing and generally an unpleasant thing for volunteer editors to have to deal with. If you make another comment like these, I am going to block you. If you can't see which parts of the comments are problematic, that is in itself a good sign you should step away. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC) "WP:COMPETENCE violations" has to be about the funniest thing for which anyone was ever reported to WP:AN. Here is what User:HumanxAnthro posted on my Talk page earlier, which does not reflect reality and does not seem to be very nice. As to the actual dispute, this film has 3 stars: Hudson, Odom and Ziegler. All the publicity was solely about them. Both the plot summary and the list of musical numbers make it clear that these are the only stars of the film. I agree with those above who noted that there is no actual guideline that says that we must dump every name mentioned on a film poster into the "Starring" section of the infobox. A review of the edits to Music (2021 film) since 3 September will show that if anyone has been edit warring concerning this issue, or leaving uncivil edit summaries it is the OP. Plus, asking someone to discuss something on the Talk page is not "ownership" or "gaming". -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) With all due respect @Ssilvers, I do think that a user attacking me with "the Gish gallop of all Gish gallops" may take the cake for the funniest ANI complaint, and sadly against me. While we may not agree on everything, I do think that this, just like the Gish gallops, calls for some serious trouting. Welcome to the club lol InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 05:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC) What uncivil edit summaries? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC) So would you laugh if I removed the names of the cinematographers, editors, composers and production companies if I did not care about those details? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Excuse me? I just gave them a warning to not enable or legitimize another user's bad behavior. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC) I strongly suggest you read WP:Boomerang as you seem to be heading in that direction. Nil Einne (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC) I was thinking this was one of the typical cases where an editor was complaining about what is basically a content dispute, but hadn't touched Talk:Music (2021 film). I was surprised but not in a good way. HumanxAnthro did post to the talk page a single time about a day before coming here [3] which is still way too fast, but I guess better than most cases of these we get. But what's not good is their sole comment [4] includes these gems "Jesus Christ, the lack of WP:COMPETENCE and understanding of attribution and weight of the users who edit this page!" and "It is so obvious to even a 60 IQ individual the comment is relevant." The last one in particular is at a minimum WP:uncivil but frankly IMO crosses the WP:NPA line. @HumanxAnthro: you've already been warned above about how you approached comments here, but this is an even further example that you need to drastically change the way you handle disputes if you want to continue to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC) HumanxAnthro, you mentioned your attempts at using the talk page at Talk:It (2017 film)/Archive 1#Cast section discussion. Your comments there seem much more reasonable although maybe are a bit too much general criticism without specifically articulating exactly you plan to change. More importantly, I don't see why you feel your experience there means using the talk page doesn't work. AFAICT, you've only made 5 fairly minor edits to It (2017 film) itself and I don't think anyone reverted your edits. No one seems to have replied to your comments there which might be unfortunate but you can interpret that as as a very weak consensus and proceed to make the changes you feel need to be made. Note that it's true that just leaving criticism on the talk page will often not lead to any change, but that's the nature of Wikipedia, editor interest and the WP:SOFIXIT culture. While it's not a misuse of talk pages to offer criticism of an article, I've done it quite a few times myself, it's also often not the most useful thing. Making specific proposals for change and asking for feedback is generally more useful and more likely to result in feedback but even then there's no guarantee. (Note though it's often helpful to check previous discussions to see if any of them have addressed your concerns and take them on board before you consider changes, especially if there are hidden comments which will often mean that something has been discussed before.) If you make proposals for change and still receive no feedback then as I said just proceed to make your changes, maybe with an edit summary that includes something like see talk, indicating you've often further explanation for your edits on the talk page. If someone reverts you then most of the time they will quickly go to the talk page and respond to you. (In rare cases, this might not be necessary if they can explain in an edit summary why your changes are unwarranted. While communicating with edit summaries is often not ideal, you should generally check out the edit summaries of reversions and see if they are sufficient to have changed your mind or at least raised new things you need to consider.) If someone has reverted you and you still feel your changes is better and it's been a few days, then it's often helpful to go to their talk page and politely ask them to join the discussion you started and further/ explain the reasons for the reversion. If an editor keeps reverting and refuses to join the talk page discussion on the issue then this is often something which will concern us. But not when you post some highly questionable comments on the talk page (on a different issue AFAICT), leave it a day and then come here. Don't treat talk pages as an either/or. They're supposed to be part of editing here. You can't just post comments to the talk page and expected someone to make edits for you (I'll ignore cases of protection or CoI for simplicity). But you also can't expect you can always make changes to the article and without the need for discussion, no matter how sure you are that your edits are correct in accordance with our policies and guidelines. Per WP:BRD you don't even always have to post on the talk page first, but once there's been dispute then yes you normally should if you still want to make your changes. And I'll emphasise again, no matter how sure you are that your changes are right and obvious or whatever, you should do your best to remain WP:CIVIL and especially avoid insulting other editors in any way such as implying they are stupid. Keep discussion focused solely on your changes and why you feel they are justified. Nil Einne (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC) How is my edit on the page related to this vandalism discussion? I did not add or remove anyone's contribution, except for deleting a hidden note that stated "Keep this as ordered and included per official poster, very high res at http://www.impawards.com/2021/music_ver2_xlg.html" to which my reason for deletion was "unnecessary, this poster already shows full billing". How is this vandalism? The user added a random poster link as a hidden note to show that it "has more names in the billing", when it has the exact same billing as the poster on the page right now. My edit clearly does not promote "a reversion that border on WP:VANDALISM, and I do not want to be associated with this discussion or this user. ภץאคгöร 08:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC) I thought you were trying to remove the names but got sidetracked by removing the hidden comment, which gave me that impression. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 12:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Worm That Turned stepping down

Please take this note as my formal resignation from the Arbitration Committee. I've been less available in 2023 than I'd like, and since we're near election season, I felt this was a good time for me to step down. Being an arbitrator is not the most appreciated role on the encyclopedia (something I've written about in the past), so I'd just like to express my personal gratitude to the remaining committee, who do so much work behind the scenes, dealing with things so the rest of the community doesn't have to. Worm^TT(talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting for the formality of it, I'm giving up CU OS for now too, please. Worm^TT(talk) 14:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Worm That Turned stepping down

Removal of Confirmed user right

Can an admin remove confirmed from this account? I no longer have a use for this right now. I also do not know if this is the correct place to ask this kind of question. Koshchki123 2 (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. It is the correct place, and I have removed the right, per your request. --Jayron32 18:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Concerns Regarding MrOllie

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 observed instances where MrOllie has deleted what I believe to be relevant links on subjects. These links were pertinent and contributed valuable information to the topics. Such deletions seemed to detract from the spirit of Wikipedia. In short, MrOllie does not seem to have taken the time to read the citations and has simply made a quick judgement.

Furthermore, I have noted a concerning attitude displayed by MrOllie in interactions with other Wikipedia users. His tone in discussions, as evidenced on his talk page, has been abrupt and dismissive. This behavior creates an unwelcoming environment for contributors and discourage constructive engagement.

I would like to request that the administrators review MrOllie's recent actions and consider whether they align with the principles of fairness, inclusiveness, and respectful communication that Wikipedia strives to uphold. While I understand the crucial role in maintaining the quality of content, it is equally important that their actions are carried out with a balanced and respectful approach.

The article in question in which MrOllie has been removing links from is Second Life.

A glance at his terrible attitude towards other users User talk:MrOllie Slxsis (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you Sure this is the right place for this report? Untamed1910 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Every link I followed led me back here. If this is the wrong place then I would be grateful for a point in the right direction. Slxsis (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

If I had seen those edits, I would have deleted the links myself. Please read our guideline on reliable sources. Donald Albury 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie is right: the source is unreliable and in all honesty, the addition appears to be promotional. Also, this is a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll accept the unreliable part, after reading in depth the reliable sources guideline. The promotional part is incorrect though. Was only trying to step my toes in and help out with the page. Slxsis (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you apologize to MrOllie for the unjustified personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about that, there was still the accusation of promotion. So he was wrong on that count. Slxsis (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It was promotional, whether you intended it as such or not. ANI is not the place to run over every dispute or sleight against you; I see no problems on MrOllies user talk page at all. I would suggest you withdraw this complaint. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2023 (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.

Long-term meatpuppetry by two admins

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

---

It brings me no pleasure to do this. I just feel the need to say that off the top. If it brings me anything, it's nausea.

Recently, admin CorbieVreccan publicly disclosed that they share an IP address with fellow admin Mark Ironie. This was, as I understand it, the consequence of an email I sent ArbCom on 26 August, documenting a yearslong pattern of Mark acting as a second !vote or second set of admin tools for Corbie. I thank ArbCom for prompting this on-wiki disclosure, as it now means that the community can discuss this pattern of misconduct in the open.

Here is a modified version of the timeline I sent ArbCom, chronicling every non-mainspace, non-own-userspace edit Mark Ironie has made since 1 January 2020. Highlighted in yellow are interactions with Corbie. Admin actions, warnings, and calls for sanctions are underlined.

• 11 January 2020: An RfC !vote
• 12–14 Jan 2020, Talk:Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women/Archive 1 § Citation changes: Mark explains that they have restored content of Corbie's that was removed. The removing editor accuses both of sockpuppetry. Corbie responds that it's interesting that you are accusing long-term admins of socking and Mark says they already had the page watchlisted. The restoration was Mark's only ever edit to the article.
• 13 January 2020: An action at RFPP
• 23 December 2020: Two actions at RFPP
• 11–13 January 2021, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 22 § Indigenous Ways of Knowing & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Replies to Corbie's noticeboard post about the article Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Once it's AfD'd, !votes delete, as Corbie before them.
• 17–25 January 2021: Some troubleshooting regarding Huggle
• 2–3 April 2021, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064 § User CejeroC disruptively editing: A call for a block and two follow-ups due to a mixup
• 1 August 2021: Two actions at RFPP
• 26–28 December 2021, Pretendian RM: Opposes move, as Corbie before them. Issues only warning to Walrasiad for personal attacks against Corbie at the RM, while defending Corbie's own comments there.
• 13 September 2022, Celtic Neopagan Reconstructionism RM: !votes neutral on "Paganism", opposes lowercasing "Reconstructionism", as Corbie before them. (Granted, in this case the two are coauthors of the article.)
• 17–20 September 2022, Talk:Reservation Dogs: Warns Revirvlkodlaku for edit-warring with Corbie. Then partially blocks Revirvlkodlaku from article and talk. This is Mark's only block since October 2019.
• 10 February 2023: Helping a new user set up their userspace
• 2 June 2023, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 1 § Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent: !votes explicitly per Corbie. (Granted, in this case both were pinged).
• 4 August 2023: Warns Skyerise for insulting Corbie at Template:Witchcraft sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
• 13 August 2023: Some troubleshooting regarding AWB
• 21 Aug 2023, witchcraft AN/I thread: Shows up to AN/I to support sanctions against Skyerise and Darker Dreams, Corbie's topic-area opponents, immediately after Corbie's own !vote.

As we can see from this, Mark almost never edits project discussions except to back up Corbie. While in a few cases Mark has had an independent reason to join in a discussion, in most cases they have had no prior experience, engaging only after Corbie did. Since 2020, 1/1 of Mark's blocks, 3/3 of Mark's warnings, 2/3 of Mark's calls for sanctions, 4/4 of Mark's AfD/RM !votes, and 2/2 of Mark's other talkpage participation have been in support of Corbie, with whom Mark shares an IP. It seems impossible, meanwhile, for Corbie to be completely naïve to this; as noted above, they were indignant when accused of meatpuppetry in 2020. (And I doubt this started only in 2020. It's just that before that Mark was more active, making it harder to find proxying behavior, and it is likewise difficult to sift through the 1,004 pages the two have interacted on, including 20 XfDs and 142 talkpages.)

Even if Mark did miraculously show up at each of these discussions independent of Corbie, that would still not change that they blocked, warned, or sought sanctions against four users who opposed Corbie in content disputes, a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:MEAT. I will not prejudge an outcome here, pending responses from the two admins involved, but something must be done to make sure this never happens again. No user should have to worry that, when they cross one admin, that admin's IP-mate is going to show up and warn them or block them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Corbie has umm... Revdelled the diff of me notifying them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This was handled privately with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I conferred with an arb prior to posting this and was told that their decision to not desysop did not preclude community review. Could you please explain why you revdelled my edit? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I was told it was done. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with rev deleting a mere notification as "disruptive"? 331dot (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We have been on record with Arbcom as sometimes sharing the same IP for 18 years. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't started this thread because you shared an IP with another admin. There's no policy against that (else I'd be in trouble myself). I started this thread because the two of you have, while sharing an IP, acted in concert in both content and conduct matters, in a manner that violated both WP:MEAT and WP:INVOLVED. Disclosure to ArbCom does not exempt you from those policies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a complete misuse of RD3 to me. A notification that's required (I know it was this template as I saw it before it was revdelled) per this noticeboard's instructions does not ordinarily fall under RD3. While CorbieVreccan is of course free to archive immediately or revert the notification, same as any other editor can, using the admin tools on this seems like tool misuse. I would suggest that they undo that revdel action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine. But these issues are arbcom matters, not for the drama boards; I was told we only needed to post the disclosure. Tamzin is the one in violation here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin is the one in violation here Violation of what? Yes the shared IP issue seems to have been handled by ArbCom, but community review of a potential meatpuppetry issue isn't in breach of any policy or guideline I'm aware of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SPI (and per WP:MEAT, the same policies apply): If you suspect sockpuppetry by an administrator, or if you need to submit off-wiki evidence for some other reason, you must email the checkuser team to open an investigation. Private information, emails, logs, and other sensitive evidence must not be posted on Wikipedia. All evidence related to a sockpuppet investigation must otherwise be posted on the designated page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said, Sideswipe, we went over all of this with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing that's presented here has been private information. Any editor could pull the evidence together using tools like sigma on toolforge. Now if you think this is the wrong venue, we could I suppose move this to WP:SPI, but I'm fairly certain we've handled meetpuppetry issues at AN and ANI before. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan, Revdel'ing the notification makes no sense. Was that just a mistake. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously ArbCom has not discussed the revdel of the notification. However, I can confirm that the committee had correspondence with the two admins in question. Yesterday, in concluding the correspondence, ArbCom requested that they disclose on their userpages that they share an IP. Based on public and private information that is what a consensus of the committee felt was appropriate in handling this manner. It's possible ArbCom will have more to say after further discussion, but I feel pretty comfortable posting that publicly without having consulted with the rest of the committee. The community has parallel jurisdiction on some aspects of this issue and can obviously reach their own decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we've been put into a tricky situation then where this has already been to Arbcom, and while obviously the community has a say Arbcom is a much better tribunal for dispute resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Especially if it turns out that there are tool use issues. Hopefully what we've seen so far (the revdel) is merely a one-off mistake - to be apologized for and moved on from. - jc37 23:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, there was no dispute resolution here. I made a referral as an uninvolved admin and SPI clerk because then-private evidence was involved. Beyond an initial acknowledgment of receipt, I never heard back from anyone speaking on behalf of the Committee—just the informal discussion with the arb I mentioned above. The secrecy of ArbCom proceedings goes both ways: On the one hand, we should not assume ArbCom did something wrong in a situation where we don't know all the facts. But on the other, we should not infer meaning from a lack of sanction by ArbCom when we don't know what their internal deliberations looked like. Were they one vote shy of serious sanctions, or did they see it as barely an issue? We don't know. What we do know is that they took an action that opens the door to community review. As Barkeep alludes to, the community has coequal jurisdiction in matters of admin conduct where the relevant evidence is public, and for good reason. Private ArbCom deliberations are not the proper venue to establish whether admins retain the community's trust, and ArbCom has never said otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought SPI clerks are not supposed to link to any sort of personal information, though, and to contribute that to Arbcom. Why did you think it was now appropriate to bring this to our attention publicly? SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I brought this to ArbCom because the connection was private at the time. Once the connection was made public, as a direct result of ArbCom's intervention, I brought it to the community, as there was no longer any policy preventing us from discussing it, and full community review of potential admin misconduct is always ideal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You could have waited to hear from Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the revdel digression, it does seem like both admins have been failing to comply with WP:SHARE. Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As I told Arbcom, and I'd rather not have to go into here: For all the years we've been Wikipedians and admins, we've at times worked on the same sock investigations and other things with Arbcom members and checkusers, and AFAIR they've all known we sometimes share an IP. But that was more frequent 15 - 10 years ago. I don't recall ever being asked to publicly disclose until yesterday. I'm sorry it didn't occur to me, but again, there have also been other reasons, that Arbcom is aware of. Again, no one has brought it up. I'm sorry if that sounds weird to you, but that's what happened. As soon as I was asked, I complied. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear - from what I see, posting to WP:AN in this case, is posting a question of behaviour. That there is IP sharing involved seems incidental to the questions being posed here and the evidence provided. So yes, questions of behaviour fall under community review. - jc37 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

And to add to the above, I would like to know how an AN notice to a user talk page qualifies for revdel as "Purely disruptive material". Somehow, I don't believe that action was "explained to arbcom". And without further explanation, seems like an WP:INVOLVED use of the tools inappropriately. Here's the revert edit after the revdel - [5]. - jc37 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I was assuming this was an arbcom matter and would be deleted. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I've reversed the revdel.[6] - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if you thought that, how is that an appropriate use of RD3 by you of a mandatory ANI notification by another admin? DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, I was told by Arbcom this was done. I was shocked and upset to see it. My understanding of the policy is that once Arbcom has handled it, it doesn't bounce back to a drama board. There are also privacy issues here that are of concern. I've reverted and I apologize. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What privacy issues? Everything that Tamzin has linked and discussed above is publicly available information on wiki. Whatever information that was supplied to ArbCom that resulted in the request that both you and Mark Ironie post a shared IP noticed on your respective talk pages doesn't appear to be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to stay focused, I think we all should probably stop talking about the shared IP part of this. That's not looking helpful to addressing the questions at hand, and I'm wary that inadvertant things could be said if discussion about that here on WP:AN continue. As noted, that part has already been addressed by arbcom. - jc37 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) With Tamzin's comment that it is difficult to sift through the 1,004 pages the two have interacted on, including 20 XfDs and 142 talkpages, I took it upon myself to sift through the XfDs. Some of these are very old, but they all display the same pattern; the two !voting in the same way, without exception (there were two discussions where one !voted redirect and the other !voted to delete, but there is little distinction between deleting and redirecting), in every XfD they both participated in. This seems to support Tamzin's belief that this did not start in 2020 - instead it seems to have been going on for almost two decades.

Review of joint XfD participation

XfD Data !Vote Notes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Ellwood 20 November 2006 Delete Mark Ironie !voted thirty one minutes after CorbieVreccan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Nolasco 8 December 2006 Delete CorbieVreccan !voted five minutes after Mark Ironie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakti Wicca 11 December 2006 Delete CorbieVreccan !voted fourteen minutes after Mark Ironie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison 15 December 2006 Merge Mark Ironie originally !voted delete, but changed to merge 3 minutes after CorbieVreccan did. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum 16 December 2006 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest (Neopagan magazine) 19 December 2006 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddy 5 January 2007 Delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination) 17 November 2007 Keep CorbieVreccan !voted thirteen minutes after Mark Ironie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Ganger 20 December 2007 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination) 28 December 2007 Delete/Redirect Mark Ironie !voted delete, CorbieVreccan !voted to redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar Symposium 28 December 2007 Delete/Redirect CorbieVreccan !voted delete, Mark Ironie !voted to redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Scullion 5 January 2008 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 4 September 2009 Keep Mark Ironie !voted thirty nine minutes after CorbieVreccan Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamassee/Yamassee native americans 28 May 2012 Keep CorbieVreccan !voted fifty eight minutes after Mark Ironie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman 10 February 2014 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods 30 September 2014 Delete Mark Ironie !voted forty six minutes after CorbieVreccan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry 19 December 2018 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing 12 January 2021 Delete

BilledMammal (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

While this table looks damning at a first glance, it seems less so after looking at the totality of their xfd edits (summary, every edit). I'm more concerned about the tool use - if my wife/roommate/little brother/whatever edited Wikipedia, there's no way I'd be using my extra buttons anywhere near anything they'd touched, whether or not we'd disclosed the relationship. —Cryptic 03:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess my son edits Wikipedia - and we presumably share the IP on a regular basis - but I do not even know what his username is. (Not particularly related to the situation in question, where the username is known, and this is an admin account). Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We did collaborate heavily in the beginning of our time on the 'pedia, as we do have shared areas of interest. In more recent years, not as much. The reason the page count is so high is that Mark Ironie runs autowikibrowser - an automated program that does minor edits on things like typos, on a massive number of pages. But not as many substantial edits as the edit count might indicate for those who don't run bots. The first thing I did when I got the message from Arbcom is offer a voluntary iBan. But they didn't bring it up in the last email, just that we do the disclosure box. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on the volume of evidence involved here and that it concerns two admins this has to be a ArbCom case. There's concerning diffs and concerning uses of the admin tools/authority and it deserves a proper evaluation. I'm not sure what further private evidence is there, but there's clearly a lot of public evidence ArbCom should be able to evaluate. Admins should not be using their tools to sanction their friend's enemies, as seems to have happened with the block against Revirvlkodlaku. Galobtter (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of this is better described as stealth canvassing whereby one person hypothetically communicates something to the other off-wiki, based on knowing their opinions, to the effect of notifying them about an on-wiki development in their shared area of interest, so that the other might also participate (which they would then do in a predictable way). At least some segments of the manifested overall pattern do not strongly relate to the policy text describing meatpuppetry, which is like sockpuppetry except the other account has a perfunctory human operator, who is not an independently motivated actor, and most typically concerns bringing in new users, who are then not here to build an encyclopedia, who may be observed as single-purpose accounts, and who are, like socks, operated by the same person—not mechanically but "socially". Here both actors can be assumed to be independently motivated but are influenced by one another. (This is not my summary of everything, just my opinion about some of it.)—Alalch E. 00:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have never posted to AN before, I am not an administrator so I hope it is OK for me to do so. I occasionally watch this page. Disclaimer: I have learned many things about Indigenous people's issues and editing in that area thru CorbieV whose integrity I deeply respect. This discussion is making me very uncomfortable because it seems that people's privacy is being violated which could cause harm. This is unwise to my way of thinking; first do no harm. This discussion is taking place in this very public forum, would it not be better to discuss privately in this case? Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is being discussed here that isn't already visible in page history. The two admins made their connections known almost from the start of their editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin either and also hoping it's acceptable to post. I joined Wikipedia when I was embarrassingly young and made a considerable amount of mistakes. I initially ran into CV within days of joining and I admit, I followed them around like a puppy for longer than I should have. I appreciate that they were patient with me in showing me the ropes. I almost exclusively edit Indigenous articles. CV and I regularly overlap. It's inevitable. This doesn't mean we are in cahoots. When something comes up for a vote, because we have similar opinions in Indian Country, we will vote similarly and because I am extremely lazy I will usually say per Corbie or per Yuchi (or per a handful of other editors that I generally agree with most of the time). It doesn't mean that they are thinking for me or contacting me off 'pedia telling me what to do. That's kind of bs to be blunt. Granted I don't have fancy buttons, but if I did I would still be making the same choices and I'd be seriously ticked if folks came in accusing me of not being able to use my brain box for myself and accusing me of being somebody's meat girl rather than Indigenous girl. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Also! Can we look at the massive amount of edits CV has done where MI is no where in sight? Has anyone thought to compare? Hm? Indigenous girl (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that CorbieVreccan has made countless positive contributions to WP.

I think the heart of the issue here is the appropriate use of those "fancy buttons". Per OP:

"No user should have to worry that, when they cross one admin, that admin's IP-mate is going to show up and warn them or block them." Crescent77 (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm unable to provide any in-depth comments on this at the moment due to irl commitments. Some of the links provided at the top by Tamzin relate to normal admin housekeeping or are unrelated to this subject. The assumption seems to be that I do not make independent decisions in situations when interacting with CorbieVreccan or situations where they are involved. I do due diligence in issuing warnings when I find a warning is warranted. Warnings are something any editor can do in response to behavior by another editor. I did the same with a few !votes where I say "per CorbieVreccan". That phrase means the rationale given by CorbieVreccan is most in line with my research into the matter at hand, not some rote agreement with their opinion. I haven't been participating on WP much in recent years and these incidents obviously stand out. I'll avoid such questionable interactions with CorbieVreccan on WP in the future. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with JC37 above that the shared IP is almost coincidental; the users could be communicating online rather than in-person, and wouldn't affect the rest of this situation. Off-wiki communication isn't in and of itself a problem; I suspect it's a rare admin who does not discuss their work off-wiki. The relevant questions are; are the admins acting independently of each other? Is WP:CANVAS being violated? If they are not acting independently, is WP:INVOLVED being violated? Are they using their off-wiki discussion as the basis for "consensus", which can only legitimately be formed on-wiki? I haven't yet had the time to investigate any of this, but for this to be a productive exercise we need to focus on the behavior vis-a-vis policy, and not on the procedural niceties; fundamentally, there's no reason the community is unable to review this right now. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  My initial impression is that WP:INVOLVED is being violated. There is clearly a strong relationship of one form or another between CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie; when such relationships exist it is inappropriate and against policy for an editor to act as an administrator in a dispute that the other editor is participating in, but that is exactly what Mark has done.

  It's less clear that WP:CANVAS is being violated, and I don't think it can be definitively proven without private evidence, but my impression based on the evidence presented by Tamzin and myself is that it is being violated; that one or the other asks the other to participate in a discussion - the consistency of support and the timeliness of support is strong evidence of that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• There's a lot to unpack here, and I think Galobtter is right that a full case is going to be the best way to do that. First, regardless of whether we frame it as meatpuppetry, stealth canvassing, involvement, or something else, what matters is that these sorts of undisclosed relationships just demonstrate extremely poor judgment and fall well below the expectations for administrators. And it does seem to be a long-term problem. I just came across this AN thread from 2019 in which there were pretty serious concerns raised about CorbieVreccan's conduct (an IBAN was proposed, and the closer stated that he would have topic-banned her if he could). Throughout this thread, Mark Ironie made numerous comments defending CV and supporting sanctions against her "opponent" without disclosing the connection. CV then showed up on MI's talk page to leave this comment, aptly described at the time as "smug, passive-aggressive insults". That was four years ago, but (along with all of Tamzin's other evidence) it shows a troubling pattern, especially since one editor thought it needed to go to ArbCom even then. I also remember this clearly out-of-process deletion, and combined with the obviously inappropriate revdel above, I wonder if there isn't also a pattern of careless/problematic tool use—at minimum, it's worth looking into. I'm not sure there's really a ton the community can do short of expressing that there's a serious problem here: in this sort of situation, all roads lead back to ArbCom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Good grief, I've just read through the whole of that 2019 AN thread linked to by Extraordinary Writ. Given what we now know, CV and MI should both be de-sysoped. How is that in any way legitimate conduct for two admins? This appears to be just one example, but it's bad enough on its own. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  INVOLVED seems to be a recurring issue here. I had held off on mentioning Corbie's indefinite AE semi-protection in February of Two-spirit (an article of which they are by far the principal editor), because they've never been challenged on it before and I appreciate we all make mistakes, and also because it was probably the right end result. But given the emerging pattern, it's worth noting as a pretty egregious misuse of AE protection (or, would-be AE protection; it was never logged and thus is not officially an AE action). This wasn't some emergency where there was no time to wait for an uninvolved admin. This was an action that Corbie acknowledged was involved, linking to a procedure page that says administrators must not[] impose a restriction when involved, for a matter that could have easily been taken to WP:RFPP instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• At first glance this all looks pretty bad. Given I can't even find a log entry for when CorbieVreccan was given +sysop, let alone an RfA, I imagine the explanation is yet again going to be that they started doing this a long time ago and haven't kept up with changing community norms since (whether that's an excuse, I don't know). However, I agree that we're very unlikely to reach any sort of conclusion here. This needs to go to ArbCom as a public case. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie were both given adminship in November 2007, under different usernames. See WP:Requests for adminship/Kathryn NicDhàna and WP:Requests for adminship/Pigman. See also [7], [8], and [9] for the username change logs. Shells-shells (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Looks like we were missing a redirect for the former. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  There's some very inappropriate collaboration from years ago (mostly pre-2011) between the two of them under their original user names at Celtic reconstructionism and its talk pages, which has multiple COI problems. It's ancient history - mostly, although see 2022 RM on the talk page - but illustrates how longstanding this is. The comment in CV/Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA about that article is interesting: At the time I began working on it [Celtic reconstructionism], I was not mentioned in the article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.[10]... given she added her name 6 weeks after MI/Pigman created the article. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• It seems a bit precious to get concerned about two people who (I presume given the shared IP) know each other having similar views on various articles; human beings talking to each other away from Wikipedia is OK. What is highly concerning is the use of admin tools, issuing warnings on behalf of one another and defending one another's use of the admin tools when these have been queried. Given the tool use in particular, ArbCom should take this issue on - they have desyoped admins for using the tools seemingly on behalf of people they know away from Wikipedia in the past. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Desysop both: I don't think this has to go to ArbCom. They sent it back for community review. I was intending to stay out of this, but I had no idea that these two were previously Kathryn NicDhàna and Pigman. They have been tag-teaming since they joined Wikipedia; I've run into their comments on talk pages (esp. User talk:Rosencomet) and deletion discussions as I've been cleaning up some of the Jeff Rosenbaum/Starwood COI articles. If that's who they are, this goes way deeper than what's been disclosed here so far. I don't have enough animosity against CV to spend time searching for details to support that, but this little not disclosed to the general editor population charade has gone on long enough. Best scenario is they voluntarily resign their admin roles. Skyerise (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I know I said I wasn't going to dig into it, but as I was putting a {{Deceased Wikipedian}} template on Rosencomet's talk page, I thought to search the ANI archives for threads about Rosencomet. And I ran into a comment from a Corvus cornix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on one of those threads. Looks to me like CorbieVreccan/Kathryn NicDhàna had a sockpuppet account from 2007 to 2011. See Editor Interaction Analyser and Interaction Timeline reports. Skyerise (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Skyerise:, any chance of linking to that comment? SN54129 13:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: Sure. It's in this thread about Rosencomet. Skyerise (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Skyerise. With almost comic timing, you see, Sourceforge is down (for me) at the moment. SN54129 13:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: I've been getting a bunch of timeouts myself... Skyerise (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've looked at every AN subpage that links to both User:Rosencomet and User:Corvus cornix (they are: AN79, ANI230, ANI235, AN117, ANI346, ANI358, ANI419, ANI422, ANI654, and of course WP:AN right now). The thread in Incidents Archive 358 linked above is the only one where Corvus cornix interacts with any of Rosencomet, Mark Ironie, CorbieVreccan, or any of their previous account names, and Cc's comment there is both tangential and entirely in keeping with other comments of theirs I saw on the other archive pages. Plus, they were much more active than either Mark Ironie or CorbieVreccan, with between half and a third as many total edits despite stopping editing entirely in early 2011. I haven't investigated any interactions outside of those AN archive pages, but based solely on those, I don't think there's any connection here. —Cryptic 14:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  While looking for the comment myself, I happened upon WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Requesting review of User:Rosencomet block, which is now looking really, really poor, especially after considering the unanswered #Personal Attacks by Rosencomet (again) from higher up the page. —Cryptic 13:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: Good find. I'm having a hard time believing this comment in a related AfD where CV claims "it's not a personality issue, it's a policy issue. I don't know Jeff/Rosencomet off-Wiki" given her field of research and her apparently intimate knowledge of an obscure early pagan zine for which she created the article, Harvest (Neopagan magazine), which dates to the same period as the founding of the Starwood Festival (early 1980s). It's starting to look to me like a conflict between Celtic reconstructionists and those with some other view of paganism and witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  That last mentioned article is basically a vehicle for self-promotion. I've gone through the edit history and posted on the COI issue on the article talk page here. DeCausa (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: I find that pretty ironic considering how they both laid into Rosencomet for COI repeatedly at User talk:Rosencomet. I mean, they were right about his COI, but really, they were carrying on their own at the same time? Skyerise (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Give it a rest, CV isn't the only one who thinks your Crusade to redefine witchcraft as a wholly positive thing is misguided and disruptive. 98.15.154.217 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was wondering how long it would take banned user Bethsheba Ashe (talk · contribs) to pipe in. Skyerise (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Take to ArbCom the numerous violations of INVOLVED and the atrocious lack of admin accountability here warrant a public case, since we can't revoke the tools ourselves. And representatives from ArbCom need to be candid about what they actually told to the parties, because if they said "hey knock it off" and that's it, they fundamentally failed the community here and didn't do any due diligence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• A lot of reading. This is clearly way too complicated a set of issues for random passersby like myself to settle here with bolded assertions. Multiple admins, multiple issues, long history of "coordination", such as it is. In the interest of ALL parties, I would encourage ARBCOM to accept such a case. Especially if CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie maintain their good faith innocence, Arbitration is only way I can imagine where their case can be reasonably and impartially reviewed. Making good faith errors is an expected part of being a wikipedian and we often learn best from making mistakes and having them pointed out to us. Sysops are only as effective as enforcements against our own prove out and only as transparent as our established procedures and social norms permit. Thank you to the typically diligent User:Tamzin for making a compelling prima facie case in the OP. BusterD (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• ArbCom again This is a big deal, but it didn't need to be. Most of the presented edits would be absolutely fine if the connection had been previously disclosed, and indeed some of them are fine even if the connection between the editors hadn't been disclosed. I'm concerned about the use of the tools though and I'm most concerned with the block of Revirvlkodlaku. It's something that needs to be referred back to ArbCom as we've desysopped people for less.
  I am also concerned about the process here, considering this has already been to ArbCom once. I think my issue is that a user with access to private information correctly presented the information privately to ArbCom but didn't wait for ArbCom to present it to the community, but I'll keep thinking about what exactly about this is bothering me. Something about the way this was brought here simply feels sensitive to me as the fact it's already been to ArbCom makes it a lot more difficult for us to comment on. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  From what I gather, SF, the only thing ArbCom have had before them so far is the notice from the two parties that they have a connection to disclose. Nothing else—tool misuse, blocks, meatpuppetry and other allegations—has. So it's not a question of double jeopardy applying if that is concerning you? SN54129 16:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to throw User talk:Mycelium101#September 2016 into the mix. It looks like a bright-line violation of WP:Blocking policy#Unblock requests in light of what we know now. The sad thing is that it appears to have been completely unnecessary, what with other admins also declining and the original block being taken over by an oversighter. —Cryptic 16:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Let me be very clear in saying I have immense respect for Corbie despite occasionally disagreeing with her approach to things. I mostly attribute that to being really passionate about the subjects we have an interest in. Most disagreements have been born out of misunderstanding and I can acknowledge, for my part, that fact. I don't think the positive contributions Corbie has made to Wikipedia can be questioned. Her importance to the project can not be overstated. She has helped me in my journey here and her value is unmatched.

That being said, I am deeply concerned what occurred during the discussion and partial block of Revirvlkodlaku. I was involved in that discussion and, though the reasoning for the block was justified, had I known the connection between MI and CV at the time, as a member of the community, I would have taken issue with who made the block. I thought MI was just another random admin that saw the problem or was alerted to the issue by another user involved in the discussion to take a look, a quite common occurrence. When two admins share an IP and can communicate off-wiki concerning on-wiki discussions, potentially formulating plans of how to best combine their positions of authority to affect the wanted outcome that they desire and then use the tools they were granted to make it happen it can have a very chilling affect on the community. Even the perception of that has the same affect. The same IP connection isn't a concern unless all the other occurs with it. We shouldn't be about controlling the private lives of users or even knowing about it outside of what they share. But when that affects their on-wiki actions, especially in the case of admins, it very much comes into play only in so much as their role on the project and use of tools. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 12 September 2023 (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.

IPhone 15 - talk page directing to Draft talk:iPhone 15

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

---

There's has been quite a bit of disruption around outstanding drafts and the release of IPhone 15 with folks copy/pasting drafts into mainspace, creating an article and/or moving articles to draft space. Its been quite dizzying. The main issue I see right now is the talk page for IPhone 15 directs to Draft talk:iPhone 15. I am not sure how that happened but requesting admin or another experienced editor to correct it. I have also requested a histmerge with Draft:iPhone 15, which may or may not be warranted but that is not an immediate concern (I don't think anyway). S0091 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've historymerged the cut-and-paste copy in mainspace back into the draft, move-protected the draft, and semiprotected the resulting redirect so it cannot be recreated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

... but should this be a draft? The device has been announced, as far as I can tell. New releases of iPhone are about as close to automatically notable as anything on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: could you launch the request to transfer draft to mainspace? Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ivanvector! @Panam2014 if you (or someone) will submit it for review, I will accept it. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I just went ahead and promoted it, per the above. No reason for this to be a draft, and I'm sure people are just going to keep trying to recreate it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you move protect the draft instead of opening an AfD? This page has already been AfC accepted and only one user has been draftifying the page against WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Iffy★Chat -- 18:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@S0091, Ivanvector, and Iffy: And for Draft:iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro? Draft use speculative sources. Panam2014 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iffy: why would I open an AFD for a history repair? Nobody was suggesting deleting the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I presumed that you move protected the draft to keep it in draft space (after you sorted the page history issues). I see now that the issue is settled and regular editing can resume. Iffy★Chat -- 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There were CSD requests while waiting for the official announcement but I think as far as iPhone 15, I think we are all set. One more request @Ivanvector, will you please delete the iPhone 15 Pro redirect so I can accept/move Draft:iPhone 15 Pro? The Pro models generally have their own articles (i.e. iPhone 14 Pro). I know, its confusing but I did have an outstanding CSD request. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I left a comment on the draft, I don't think it's ready since the only information there is that the phone was announced (which I just included in the main article instead) and everything else is poorly sourced rumour, or equally poorly sourced refutation of the same rumour. But this is probably the same issue as above where people will keep trying to recreate it over the redirect anyway, so yeah I'll probably just do it. There might also be a cut-and-paste issue with the redirect though, let me look into that first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, done. @S0091: the redirect is out of your way, but let me know if you still have problems. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

All good! Thanks for your help It's now up the to community to expand and/or determine it should be merged. S0091 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2023 (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.

AI being used for block appeals?

I just dropped the text of one long block appeal into GPTZero to see if it was AI generated and got a score of 98%. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly it's not the first. I saw a ChatGPT block appeal that was accepted about a month ago. I would personally not have accepted it as I think using ChatGPT for a block appeal is a bit lazy and deceptive and insincere, but to each their own I guess. I have also seen ChatGPT used in articlespace, draftspace, and article talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been seeing this with increasing frequency. I almost always summarily decline such requests, we should hear from the user themselves. Furthermore, if it was the AI who was blocked, the AI generated requests would not work to get the AI unblocked as they usually are very general, filled with glowing platitudes about how committed they are and how deep their regret is and how much they love Wikipedia and would never hurt it. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Awhile ago I added this to the guide to encourage people to write their requests themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, it sounds like LLM detectors such as GPTZero are not accurate enough to rely on. More info. Although I appreciate the irony of using machines to detect other machines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, AI-generated platitudes are easily detected by human intelligence. I've seen maybe half a dozen of these, they all read as if they were trained on a particularly insipid customer service interface. Acroterion (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The detectability of AI-generated platitudes by human intelligence depends on various factors, including the quality of the AI model, the context in which the platitudes are presented, and the perceptiveness of the human observer. Chat! said Boing (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of these. In general, the unblock requests are essentially free of any meaningful content, rarely even attempting to address the reason for the block. Such requests reflect badly on the requestor. I wish there was a reliable way to automatically detect and reject all such requests. I think the best we can do is what 331dot has already done, discourage such requests in the guidelines, then decline the requests when they come in. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipedia should prohibit unblock appeals made using AI is a complex and nuanced question that depends on various factors and perspectives.... OK, I'll stop now :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me of my college writing style when I was trying to pad up the word count... Jip Orlando (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

CAPTCHA: Trying to convince a robot you're not a robot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• I am wondering if we should consider editing the block notices and declined unblock request templates to advise against bot written requests. Probably wouldn't do much good in preventing them but we would have something to point to. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

A standard "decline-ai" would be helpful. Something that indicates it appears as though the request was generated by AI, without stating we are absolutely certain of it. I'm seeing enough AI-generated requests that I'd also support updating the block notices. --Yamla (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a downside to this? Anyone else see one? Doug Weller talk 12:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I support this idea as well, along with the "decline-ai". RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I like this. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a yes from me. WaggersTALK 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Suppport, including the "decline-ai" notice.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with doing both. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom has also gotten block appeals that can be ascribed to AI and we've also had the thought internally to have a standard form for AI requests (we have many boilerplates, some of you have probably gotten one or the other). So yes, I would appreciate modifying blocked to say that appeals should be not AI appeals ("in their own words", but that might be too subtle for these folks), and would also support a standard "no, you did it wrong, try doing it yourself this time". Izno (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although this may well be an AI-written block appeal, tools like GPTZero are not accurate. There is currently no reliable way for machines to determine whether text is AI-generated. Sam Walton (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So there's one area where we know better than the machines. :) 331dot (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Note. This was discussed a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:Large language models/Archive 5#Unblock requests. Folly Mox (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Using AI to appeal a block is almost as convincing as "Wikipe-tan ate my homework". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone using AI to appeal a block is either too incompetent to understand the purpose of a block appeal, what we want from a block appeal and how to frame a block appeal; we don't want them. Or they're trying to hoodwink us in some way; we don't want them. Or they're not taking the entire process seriously; so we don't want them. The bottom line should be, that AI-generated appeals should lead to an immediate revocation of everything and a site ban. Appeal in six months... preferably in their own handwriting. SN54129 15:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  So, what standard of proof that they have used a LLM to write their appeal should we use? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Or a preponderance of evidence? What method will give us the highest percentage of correct positives? What percentage of false positives are we willing to accept when applying the ban hammer? Donald Albury 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  ArbCom has been getting a fair amount of ban appeals that appear to be AI-generated. The most common feature that I've noticed is they sound contrite, but don't really adress the issues that led to the block with any substance, which is already a perfectly valid reason to decline an appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have argued elsewhere that we do not need to change our current processes to handle AI-generated edits. If an edit doesn't meet our standards for the type of edit, does it matter whether it is AI-generated or not? Donald Albury 17:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it matters. Wikipedia is supposed to be a human-edited project, not an AI generated project. Even leaving that aside, it reflects a certain laziness. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think the more important point to keep in mind, is that these are not true AIs. If they were, I think it is safe to say they would be welcome to join the project. Anthropocentrism isn't a core value. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  As Viriditas says, I don't recall anything in our policies and guidelines saying that only humans can edit WP. And policy does allow bots to edit. The issue here, though, seems to be about human editors pasting in text generated by large language models (LLMs). The editors doing so are still responsible for those edits. If the edits do not meet some part of the policies and guidelines, then we can deal with them in the same way we deal with all other such edits, without regard to whether the edits incorporate text generated by LLMs. In the case of appeals of sanctions, the criteria should be whether a consensus of responders agree that the appeal is up to standard. If our standard for identifying appeals that incorporate LLM-generated text is that they don't meet our criteria for sincerity, remorsefulness, and full acknowledgement of their errors, then they will be rejected whether or not they are LLM-generated. As LLMs become better, it is going to become harder to detect text generated by an LLM. On the other hand, the better LLMs are incredibly expensive to run, and the companies running them will sooner or later seek to monetize them. Once the companies start charging for access to LLMs, we will probably see fewer instances of LLM-generated text in edits. Donald Albury 12:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, WP:LLM is still just a proposal, so we don't actually have any clear-cut guidelines on LLMs. That said, I'd think that an admin doesn't need any specific new rules to reject a bot-written appeal, given its obvious insincerity (and the possibility that the entire account might be a WP:BOTPOL violation.) I do think it's important to highlight the fact that LLM detectors are often inaccurate; I suspect they'd be particularly inaccurate when used on bad appeals, which are often going to be generic-sounding and formulaic in a way that will trigger AI detection regardless of whether it was actually used or not... but it doesn't make a big difference because either way it's going to be an appeal that doesn't say anything meaningful. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone here is proposing new rules so much as new ways to close requests and inform. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've seen quite a few of these, and I have to say now it's an ongoing pattern we're going to have to deal with. Most of the time they're very easy to spot: an editor with a poor grasp of formal English suddenly writes a paragraphs-long appeal in near-perfect professional American English (it's always American English) which doesn't address the cause for the block at all, just apologizing for vague wrongdoings and swearing that they love Wikipedia and all that. No change to policy is needed: such a request would not convince anyone, regardless of who wrote it, that the user understands what behaviour caused them to be blocked, basically the only requirement in an appeal. They can be summarily dismissed, and should be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Though I do support creating a response template. It would be delicious irony if it were written by an LLM, but maybe that's pointy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Is there anything unusual about the users using GPTs to appeal blocks? Are they, for instance, more likely to be spammers? MER-C 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Some I think are used by those for whom English is not their best language, but most are just people who think that it will write better than they can. I don't think they are more likely to be spammers. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Searching for a missing wikipage: Rachel Moss

a year or so ago I found a wiki entry on my mother, Rachel Moss, daughter of Cyril Bailey and wife of Basil_Moss_(priest). The entry was much longer than for her husband and focused on her time in Birmingham, UK and her editorship of "God's yes to Sexuality". Cyril Bailey's page mentions her and the book. Her name is in red. Doe this confirm there used to be a page for her. And if so can it be restored? It contained no controversial or inaccurate information. I would be grateful if any administrators can throw light on this, and either explain why it was deleted or restore it. 144.82.114.250 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Rachel Moss is blue for me, and its history indicates it's not a new page. Animal lover |666| 17:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a different Rachel Moss. Deor (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous page for Rachel Moss (activist), the Rachel Moss you are looking for. No deleted edits for any of those articles, nothing in articles for deletion or the other usual places to look. Are you sure it was on Wikipedia? Antandrus (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This wouldn't show up in AfD archives if the entry was CSD'd or PRODDED or draftified and then deleted after six months. It sure would be nice if there was a searchable "deletionspace" where people could find any titles that used to exist and their move/deletion histories. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That is indeed something I've wanted for a long time. Antandrus (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Antandrus as an admin you should be able to do this? If you go to Special:Undelete (note that there's no page specified, and you might need to add &fuzzy=1 to the end of the URL like so [11]) you should be presented with a search box that lets you look for deleted pages by title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything, and I've searched every combination of Rachel/Bailey/Moss/activist. According to the search, only 88 pages containing "(activist)" have ever been deleted, and none of them were called Rachel. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP was reading some of the references in the article? This obituary in the guardian [12] seems to cover most of the material they mention? I've looked through some archiving sites and that link seems to have been red in the timeframe mentioned. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly a possibility. I looked to see if either her husband or father's article used to contain the information - they didn't - and I checked Simple English as well. So I suspect that might be it. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw, even the first edit for Cyril Bailey already contained redlinks for Gemma Bailey and Rachel Moss (activist; @Noswall59: Can you shed some light on this? Did you want to create articles for those redlinks? Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall a great amount about those articles, but I do remember writing Cyril Bailey's. I suspect that I saw Rachel Moss's obituary and the popularity of her book, and suspected that she would meet our notability criteria, so I gave her a red link in the prose of Bailey's article. I don't seem to have created an article for her, however -- almost certainly because her work sits outside of my areas of expertise. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC).

I’ve done a very rough and possibly incomplete query of deletion logs (quarry:query/76620), and the only real match is Rachel moss, an article that was speedily deleted in 2008 under A7. Could this be the page? As a nonadmin I can’t see what used to be there so can’t personally confirm or deny.

I may well have missed something here, so apologies if I have. All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

good search but no. This was a 1-line nonsense page. Nthep (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah well, it was worth a try :) ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User Talk page disruption by blocker user Swiftosis

User:Swiftosis was blocked for unrepentant antisemitism and has used their User Talk page to sealion, play dumb, waste time and make spurious unblock requests, one of which they got an AI to write for them. Now they are making personal attacks. I feel that this edit should be the final straw and that it is high time to revoke their talk page access. It is not like they are making any good faith attempts to be unblocked. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Declined that request and removed TPA. That comment sealed the deal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding باسم

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 hope everyone's doing well today.

There's an Arabic Wikipedia user @باسم who is consistently violating Wikipedia's rules on N:POV. The classic example is an article about a historical figure named Musaylimah. He was a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad who also claimed prophethood. In the vast majority of the article's translations, he is named just that: Musaylimah. However, in the Arabic translation, the title is "Musaylimah the Liar".

The phrase "Musaylimah the Liar" has been a derogatory slur used by Muslims scholars for more than a thousand years. While it's understandable for Wikipedia to inform readers about the fact that this Musaylimah figure was nicknamed "the Liar", for the article to have the slur as the title is a blatant violation of N:POV.

When I mentioned this in the Talk page, my discussion was deleted by @باسم. I posted it again, and again, it was deleted by him. He then left me a message on my user's talk page, saying the following:

"توقف فورًا عن المس بالثوابت واستفزاز المُستخدمين ولو كان ذلك في نقاش المقالات! لك أن تُحب وتكره وتُدافع وتُبغض من أردت بينك وبين نفسك أو في مُجتمعك مع الذين يُشاطرونك أفكارك، لكن أن تنقل هذا الكلام إلى صفحات الموسوعة، مُستترًا بالحياديَّة أمرٌ غير مقبول. لو تكرر منك هذا فستُمنع فورًا. احترم نفسك واحترم الأغلبيَّة!"

This is the English translation:

"Immediately stop violating principles and provoking users, even if it is in discussing articles! You can love, hate, defend, and hate whomever you want between yourself or in your community with those who share your ideas, but bringing this discussion to the pages of the encyclopedia, cloaked in neutrality, is unacceptable. If you do this repeatedly, you will be banned immediately. Respect yourself and respect the majority!"

Again, I posted the request to change the title for a third time. I was then banned for three days. The reason? كلمات بذيئة بالصفحات (vulgarities), even though I never cursed anyone.

When warned he would be reported to Wikipedia's administration, he left the following comment:

"تفضَّل وخُذ اللقطات التي تُريد ولو رغبت ألتقطها أنا لك، ثُمَّ اشتكِ حتَّى تشبع، لكنني سأظل لك ولأمثالك بالمرصاد. لا تتحجج بالحياديَّة وتتخفَّى خلفها وأنت لا ترغب إلَّا بالإساءة للإسلام والمُسلمين، ولا ترغب إلَّا بسكب حقدك في هذه الموسوعة بصورة استغباء للقارئ. عُد لمثل هذه التعديلات وسأعود خلفك. إن لم يكن بإمكانك لجم نفسك فابتعد عن هذه المقالات واهتم بما يُفيدك ويُفيد القُرَّاء!"

This is the English translation:

"Go ahead and take the shots you want, and if you wish, I will take them for you, then complain until you are satisfied, but I will remain on the lookout for you and people like you. Do not use neutrality as an excuse and hide behind it when you only want to offend Islam and Muslims, and you only want to pour your hatred into this encyclopedia in a way that fools the reader. Come back to such modifications and I will come back after you. If you cannot restrain yourself, stay away from these articles and focus on what benefits you and the readers!"

This user has tremendous power over Arabic Wikipedia. He has been editing it since 2007. The moment anyone brings up mention of neutrality, he shuts it down. I'm not the first to ask for the slur "the Liar" to be dropped from the title. When someone requested the same back in April 2021, @باسم replied:

"احترم نفسك وبلا شطحات وقفزات لاستنتاجات! هذا الرجل يشتهر في جميع المؤلفات التاريخيَّة بِمُسيلمة الكذَّاب، وفي ويكيبيديا لن نخترع أو ننتقي له إسمًا آخر بحُجَّة الحياديَّة. التاريخ لا يعرف الحياديَّة ولا المُسايرة، التاريخ وقائع، وواقع هذا الرجل أنَّهُ كذَّاب ادعى النُبُوَّة وثبُت الأمر على هذا، وأي تبديل في هذه الوقائع هو استغباء للقارئ وتشويه لتاريخنا، وهو أمرٌ لن يكون في ويكيبيديا العربيَّة. بين قوسين "دعوة الحيادية لا تعني تجميل التاريخ وانتقاء ما نُجمِّله منه". لتكن هذه المرَّة الأخيرة التي تستخدم فيها هذا الأسلوب في الكلام، ولو أنك توجهت إلى الزميل"

This is the English translation:

"Respect yourself and do not rush to conclusions! This man is known in all historical literature as Musaylimah the Liar, and on Wikipedia we will not invent or choose another name for him under the pretext of neutrality. History does not know neutrality or conformity, history is facts, and the reality of this man is that he is a liar who claimed prophecy and the matter has been proven on this, and any change in these facts is foolishness to the reader and distortion of our history, which is something that will not be in the Arabic Wikipedia. In parentheses, “The call for neutrality does not mean beautifying history and choosing what to beautify from it.” Let this be the last time you use this style of speech, even if you are addressing a colleague."

Is this what Wikipedia stands for? Does it stand for someone dogmatic to tear down neutrality in order to favor his own religious beliefs? I thought Wikipedia was all about being neutral. Not necessarily unbiased; I don't want flat Earth to be mentioned as a serious theory, but still, we can speak about it with neutrality.

I hope swift action can be taken soon. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This concern appears to be about edits on the Arabic Wikipedia. We have no jurisdiction over that, so you need to take up the complaint there. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That's the issue, Phil: I'm banned. I can't even make the complaint over there. And even if I could, many of the admins handling complaints over at Arabic Wikipedia share the same values of upholding religious beliefs (typically Islamic) over impartiality. This is why you see the Arabic admin in question nonchalant about someone filing a complaint against him, since he knows nothing will happen. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

However, the English Wikipedia cannot do anything with another language's Wikipedia. There is literally nothing we can do here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this is pretty disappointing. I understand English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over Arabic Wikipedia, but to not even give contacts of other people who potentially have jurisdiction over Arabic Wikipedia is simply saying "these admins can do whatever they want to do, and you can do nothing about it". So much for Wikipedia being a beacon of information! FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2023 (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.

Pages hacked by israiyl flag

Several pages pertaining to Bollywood actors have been replaced entirely by a black page with the esrail flag eg shahid Kapoor and rani mukherjee. There are probably more. 148.252.132.160 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any such issues at Rani Mukerji or Shahid Kapoor. The latter hasn't been edited for almost a month. WaggersTALK 10:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Module:IPA is repeatedly being vandalised by Grahamd87, who keeps adding a flag of Israel wrapped in "unconfired show" tags [13]. Please can someone block them and protect the module? Template editors should remember that if they're going to convert a widely used template to LUA they should have the new module protected before it is used on hundreds of thousands of pages. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime has protected the module. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Module protected and user blocked — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Pro tip: one quick way to identify templates causing image vandalism is the script User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod. Wasn't needed in this case, but just mentioning for the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Should have seen this coming and asked the module to be protected. Thank you TNT and those who reported this. Nardog (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing with the Persian language page. I thought it was just me and I was nuts, so I'm both relieved that it's not my imagination and concerned. 2607:FB91:223F:CF3E:25CE:824B:7F2:C46D (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Persian Language page redirects to Israeli flag?

Hello! I was going down a rabbit hole about different parts of the Persian language, but when I type in or click on the actual page for the Persian language, it just shows an Israeli flag. I have been using my phone, so I switched it to desktop mode and it did the same thing. Then I tried searching for the Wikipedia page for the Persian language page and it still did the same thing. I don't know if it's a thing with me or what, but I wanted someone to look into it. Thank you for your help 2607:FB91:223F:CF3E:25CE:824B:7F2:C46D (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

see the section #Pages hacked by israiyl flag above. It's the same issue which is now fixed. If you're still seeing it then purge your cache. Nthep (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ekren has retired

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

---

After more than ten years of silence, this user has just replaced their user talk page with a notification of their retirement, formally ending this user's activity in Wikipedia. The user has also requested deletion of their userpage ({{Db-u1}}) as stated in their retirement comment, but could not do so because the user is currently blocked. Eyesnore 23:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted their user page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2023 (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.

Urgent LTA/SPI inquiry

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

---

Hello, I am suspecting a long-term abuse and sockpuppetry incident on Wikipedia. Please come take a look here. TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is urgent about connecting an account blocked 8 years ago to one blocked 3 years ago? Zaathras (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the SPI. The OP is wasting our time.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Correction: I've rolled back the changes to the SPI - I shouldn't have deleted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? What is OP? TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

OP=original poster, meaning you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

How am I wasting your time by collecting observations and conducting a report? It says in the above section that that was the appropriate place to go to submit a report. TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 01:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Zaathras @Bbb23 I don't understand TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2023 (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.

Sockpuppet investigation

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, is this the correct place to add information about a sockpuppet investigation to notify administrators? TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPI is designed for that sort of thing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What if both already have pages and are currently marked as different accounts, but they seem to be the same? TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Again if you have evidence or diffs that would be something to look into, SPI is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Pick one of the pages and reference the other one with a link and say that you think there is a connection between the two. IznoPublic (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2023 (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.

Selective deletion of page history

Dear admins, I recently moved a page from my sandbox into main space, along with all its revisions since 2009. Can you please delete the page history up until this version? Sorry for the inconvenience. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops! No worries, I'll sort that now. WaggersTALK 12:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 12:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Waggers thanks! el.ziade (talkallam) 06:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Dasdascv

I have updated some information in the Bidhannagar article, as per the information provided on the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation website (www.bmcwbgov.in). But, User:Dasdascv (talk) changed and removed it without providing any references and made personal attacks (here) on the edit summary, Which is inconsistent with the work of Wikipedia. He also abused my user page (here). -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Besi pakamo marle tor user page er pechon aro marbo chup chap thak onno jaiga edit kor Salt Lake ta hat dis na ota niye pakamo maris na Dasdascv (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that's an indef block right there. Done. WaggersTALK 09:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

He created another account (User:Dasdasisback), and again started vandalism in Bidhannagar article (here 1, 2). -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for obvious socking. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Urgent request

Hello, please delete User:54nd60x/common.js now as per User talk:54nd60x/common.js! This is taking too long and I want to get back in now. BTW I am 54nd60x. 2600:1011:B173:D428:A8E5:C7EF:48C:C075 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Alternatively, try temporarily disabling JavaScript in your browser. You should then be able to login and clear your common.js. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

And now 54nd60x has gone on a NSFW image vandalism spree. @Courcelles - could you check if this is a compromised account, and/or if TheFriendlyGuyy is the same user? — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ingenuity Funnily enough? They’re an exact match to TheFriendltGuy in the section right below. Ugh. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry folks, this seemed harmless enough to do, just knowing that wikibreak enforcer code has caused this problem before, legitimately. My bad. Courcelles (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles (or anyone), I believe some revdels/TPA revocation is in order. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

All done. Courcelles (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The wikibreak enforcer was set to expire at the start of 2022, so there's no reason you should be unable to log into your account. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

RfD needs closure

The RfD at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 2#Invest 93L has now been open for 3 weeks including its time before being relisted. It needs to be closed. IMO it's a consensus for deletion. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Obsolete indef block for an Australian IP

The IP address 60.231.28.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked since 2012, but this block is no longer needed since it has been reassigned since that date. According to a 2010 comment by MCAspire (talk · contribs) at the Ip's user page, it was assigned to Fraser Coast Anglican College in Hervey Bay, Queensland, but now geolocates to a locality in Brisbane, approximately 240 kilometres (150 mi) south. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocks are best discussed with the blocking admin in the first instance, and they are still active. @Andrewa: you don't seem to have been notified of this issue, or thread. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have no objection to unblocking. The indef was I think correct at the time but may no longer be necessary. Andrewa (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Geolocations are approximate at best. Most of the time my IP will mostly locate vaguely to my location, but my current IP doesn't geolocate to within 50 miles of me and greater distances are not unusual. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Australian IPs routinely geolocate weirdly (at one point my IP was in Perth, multiple thousands of kilometres from me). Vaticidalprophet 11:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblocked. If it causes problems, it can be blocked again, but it shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. It's common for IP addresses to be reallocated to a different company after a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and agreed. I would have unblocked if asked. But I think the indef was correct at the time. Andrewa (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Mark Ironie (talk · contribs) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs) will be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, these editors must disclose their connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Mark Ironie and CorbieVreccan

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

Hardeep Singh Nijjar, is the subject of Sikh vs India edit-warring, with a lot of back and forth about whether he was assassinated in Canada by agents of the Indian government (alleged) and/or was a terrorist (allegedly). Could it be protected? Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected by @Lofty abyss about half an hour ago. WaggersTALK 07:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly not surprised to find through all this edit warring, the only edits ever to Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar have been template addition and maintenance. [14] Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A number of concerns about a COI editor

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.

---

• Lucy Letby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Richard D. Gill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lucia de Berk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gill110951 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am creating this entry as a number of actions by a WP:Conflict of interest editor have concerned me on the Lucy Letby article and elsewhere. A talk page discussion [15] began yesterday about an issue of content which partly involved mentions of Richard Gill, a mathematician. Gill has been involved in his own personal campaign to free the recently-convicted Letby [16], and as a result the editor who began the talk page discussion suggested that Gill himself (who's edited on the talk) didn't participate in this particular discussion, since it was partly about whether to mention him on the article proper [17]. However, Gill has not followed this request and, in my view, has instead done the opposite and swamped the discussion: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. I did try and remind Gill on a number of occasions of the request for him to avoid this particular issue [26], [27], but he continued anyway. What I find particularly concerning is the content of some of these entries; he's said that his purpose, despite being on the talk page, is "not to suggest changes to the article" [28] and instead began to use the space to promote his own personal views on the wider Letby case and, tangentially, his criticism of the UK legal system in general, rather than discuss the article and changes to it [29]. This was uncomfortable to me as it seemed, considering his aim was "not to suggest changes to the article", that he was going against WP:SOAPBOX and directly contravening the warning at the top of the page that "This page is not a forum for general discussion about Lucy Letby. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article". A number of other possible guideline infringements have also concerned me. Gill has also been altering his own talk contributions after other editors have already replied to him, an apparent infringement of WP:REDACT. He did so here: [30]. Whilst it initially appears that this edit may have been done in good faith, the surreptitious changing of his comment on "the enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" to "what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media coverage about this trial" was done in direct response to my content point about how his acknowledgement of this 'enormous bias' in secondary sources actually reinforced my point [31] about how examples of reliable secondary sources disbelieving Letby's conviction are almost non-existent. Therefore, his going back on his original comment to redact it to 'what also appears to some to be enormous bias in UK mainstream media...' is evidently an attempt to conceal his previous, potentially unfortunate, comments. This really does seem to be a WP:REDACT issue. Furthermore, he redacted in that edit something what seems to me to also be quite disingenuous - his writing on himself in the third person(!) as one of the 'highly qualified professionals' on his side, which was misleading to editors who may not have realised that the person listing Richard Gill as a highly qualified professional was Richard Gill! What Gill then did I think also made it worse and potentially infringes not only on WP:REDACT but on WP:PROMOTION and WP:COICAMPAIGNING - he altered his own talk contributions to provide links to the personal campaign sites of him and his allies and to his own Wikipedia page [32].

Gill went on to comment on how his own article has been 'repeatedly vandalised in recent months'. Looking into the page in question I then found on the edit history that he has been editing and reverting his own page(!) consistently, [33], and that the page on himself was even created by himself! Does this behaviour surely not violate WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST guidelines which states that "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, living or dead... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles"??. What has really upset me is my discovery that he has further been consistently editing articles over the years on people who's campaigns he was directly involved in - such as Lucia de Berk, an article he, again, created [34].

Further research on Gill reveals that he has been promoting his Wikipedia edits to his own article on his social media to his supporters - [35]. Considering that such actions are likely going to encourage his followers on the social media platform to come to his aid or support his edits, could this also not constitute a form of WP:CANVASSING?

Apologies for the rather extensive entry, I just feel that the combination of these factors illustrate behaviour that does not meet the requirements from a conflict of interest editor, and I am somewhat surprised that this has not been picked up on before. Snugglewasp (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Swamped the discussion? I tried to add some balance to the discussion on the talk page, and I tried to point out that the main article page seemed to me to give a very biased view of the case. It appeared to me that Snugglewasp is convinced of Lucy Letby's guilt and therefore himself has a COI. Also he demonstrably does not believe in my good faith. Anyway: there has been a request for an appeal. There is a growing movement in social media and starting to be apparent in mainstream media too, that many people feel that Lucy's trial was unfair, and a smaller number of course tend to think that she likely is innocent. Recent polls on Twitter and Facebook suggest the opinions are about equally divided. I am afraid that Snugglewasp has invested an enormous amount of energy in reproducing the prosecution case on Wikipedia. Of course, the webpage must refer to reliable sources and at present most so-called reliable sources tend to agree that Lucy is an evil witch and her crimes are disgusting and inexplicable. But will that stay the case for long? Is it forbidden to mention - on the talk page - ongoing developments in this case, which suggest that much of the present article is premature?

The article is about the trial of Lucy Letby, not about the person Lucy Letby. There has been a conviction at first instance. Now the procedure has been started for an appeal. An enquiry has also been announced, based on the premise that her conviction is definite. But, this story is likely going to run and run, and the Wikipedia page on this trial (and trials) is not going to be finished for maybe five to ten years, if past cases are anything to go by.Richard Gill (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the current page on myself was indeed created by myself, at a time when there were pages on about four different Richard Gill's, and I helped out in disambiguating ourselves. (There is an Australian conductor, there is a top economist, there was me, and I think someone else too). Indeed I created a wikipedia page on Lucia de Berk. There was already a Dutch wikipedia page on the case and I helped with translating it an adapting it for an international audience. I have been deeply involved in several serial killer nurse cases and I am just one person of many who has worked on the Wikipedia pages on those nurses. It is true that in my daily life I sometimes play the role of a campaigner. I also play the role of a scientist. I am very highy cited, I am a member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Science, and so on. I did not achieve those qualifications by campaigning against miscarriages of justice or by manipulating Wikipedia. By the way, I often worked as a forensic scientist for the prosecution side. I helped get the terrorists who assassinated prime minister Hariri of Lebanon convicted by the UN tribunal on Lebanon. I attempted to correct a Dutch miscarriage of justice in which the obvious murderer of a young woman was not convicted because the Netherlands judiciary was too scared to use new scientific tools for the interpretation of low copy number mixed DNA profiles. But I failed, that time. I act in good faith and I believe that I have a good record in preserving my scientific integrity and impartiality even when participating in movements to correct miscarriages of justice. Richard Gill (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Snugglewasp's own point of view is evident in many little issues of framing. For instance, controversial "expert" Dewi Evans is called "paediatric doctor Dewi Evans" even though he has been retired for 15 years or so, and has a private company in which he is a controversial "gun for hire" in child custody cases. During the Letby trial he was asked if he was a scientist, and he said, no, I am not really a scientist. On the other hand I am a famous and still internationally active scientist but I am called a "retired statistician". Indeed, I now get a pension so the university no longer pays my salary, but I am an active research mathematician working in quantum information theory, and in forensic science, and in mathematical statistics and probability and in applied statistics. I still regularly publish in the best peer-reviewed journals and I am listed on my own university's web pages as a member of my department of mathematics at the faculty of science of Leiden University. My correct designation is "emeritus professor of mathematical statistics". See https://research.com/scientists-rankings/mathematics/nl for some indication of my scientific standing in the Netherlands: top mathematician, according to one ranking. Richard Gill (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gill110951: hold up. Commenting about a COI user is different from you making comments on me. A COI editor is always going to elicit more scrutiny by their nature. That doesn't mean you can make personal comments/borderline attacks on me - which I note you began to approach doing on the talk page. You don't know what my opinions are, it is improper to state that is appears to you "that Snugglewasp is convinced of Lucy Letby's guilt and therefore himself has a COI". Stating "I am afraid that Snugglewasp has invested an enormous amount of energy in reproducing the prosecution case on Wikipedia" is also patently false - I've only made three edits to the article proper, and I never added anything about the prosecution case. As a matter of fact I actually have no opinion of the guilt of Lucy Letby, in this case I am only interested in the acute conflict of interest issue. Making comments about me as an editor is not proper per WP:No personal attacks - "comment on content, not on the contributor". As I say that might sound hypocritical, but a COI editor is bound to have greater scrutiny on them, especially on an entry on a noticeboard where I am raising a COI issue. As a neutral, uninvolved editor, meanwhile, I do not need to take unfounded accusations of bias or conflict of interest. I already felt uncomfortable about your talk page comments to me "May I therefore just remind you of the following general guidelines: Assume good faith; Be polite and avoid personal attacks; Be welcoming to newcomers; Seek dispute resolution if needed...", the implication being that I am somehow being unreasonable (I'm not sure why you'd say be welcome to newcomers when you and I have been editing for years here anyway) [36]. In any case, on the issue of personal attacks, you do not seem to have heeded your own advice! Snugglewasp (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if I got the impression that you were a main editor active on that page. Still, I stand by my comments about the biased nature of that page. Your attacks on me concerning the page about myself are unfounded. I already explained to you how it came about that I appear to have started that page. I didn’t. I did help disambiguate the several pages on various different Richard Gills by renaming the one about me as Richard D Gill (statistician). At the time, nobody objected. Richard Gill (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• In future situations like this, you may want to post at WP:COIN or WP:ANI instead. Also the original post is a bit dense, making it take a lot of brainpower to parse. I have skimmed it quickly and determined that this centers around the article Lucy Letby and the user Gill110951. Is this correct? I only see one recent edit by Gill to that article (not nearly as much as I was expecting for this kind of report). It sounds like your main objection is that Gill is participating in talk page discussions while having a COI? There are no restrictions on talk page discussions for COI editors, so perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. Can you please concisely point me towards any other poor behavior or diffs that I missed? Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I can maybe provide a shortened version for everyone. IRL Gill110951 is a statistician, Richard D. Gill, that has a specialty in generating evidence supporting defendants in alleged wrongful convictions. He believes the recently convicted British serial killer Lucy Letby is wrongly convicted and has been filling up the article talk page with his theories. Snugglewasp thinks this is a COI issue. However, it's not really COI because he hasn't been editing the article (apart from one minor edit). I think the most that could be said is it's WP:RGW, WP:BLUDGEON, with a dash of WP:PROMO thrown in. But yes, it should be at ANI if anywhere. DeCausa (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

No no, let me explain! I'm not saying that the issue is Gill110951 participating in talk page discussions with a COI, that's obviously fine! Apologies, my very long post has probably confused things. Long story short, my main concern is instead that the user has been creating and editing on other articles in which he has a direct involvement - including his own article Richard D. Gill which he created and then continues to self-regulate and edit even though it's his own article, and the Lucia de Berk article which he also created and consistently edits on even though he was jointly leading the campaign on her. In addition to this I was also saying that the editor has been infringing on other guidelines - WP:REDACT, WP:CANVASSING, WP:PROMOTION and WP:COICAMPAIGNING - some of which he has done during the Lucy Letby talk page discussion. But just to be clear, my issue is not him participating in the talk or editing the Letby page (which, as you've said, he's only done once anyway), it is his wider conduct. I hope that makes some sense. Snugglewasp (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok! Still should be over at ANI. This thread's already a mess - unless others think otherwise, may be best to close and re-open over there with a much shortened opening (just stick to citing each policy alleged to be breached with example diffs.). DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I have not been “filling up the talk page with my theories”. I made some constructive comments on the talk page with mention of a number of facts whose veracity is easy to check. Richard Gill (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned that the article details the prosecution case against Lucy Letby during her initial trial for serial murder. Her defence lawyers did very little to defend her. Lucy is now appealing her conviction. Already, the article is being appended with news of the latest developments. Personally, I do not intend to come back to these pages for a while, and hopefully not at all. I worked professionally on the case before the trial, working on a publication by the Royal Statistical Society about the dangers of abuse of statistics in such cases, and how to alleviate them. Richard Gill (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The editor in question has now started editing the main page, including an unsourced addition here. He also reverted several copy edits and reverted my removal of the unsourced addition. The reason given 'sources are easy to find'. This does seem like a case of COI and disruptive editing.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2023 (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.

Resignation of SilkTork

I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee at the end of this year - December 31, 2023. Due to age and health I have struggled with the requirements of clarity of thought, energy levels, and remaining emotionally detached that is required of an Arb, and don't feel I have given of my best during this term. The thought of another year is wearying. I have been impressed with the professionalism, knowledge, skills and work ethic of the current Committee, one of the best and most supportive I have worked with. The Arbitration Committee, thanks to the work of not just the current but also previous Committees, is moving forward into an efficient organisation, and - despite my resignation - I would recommend it for those younger admins who have not yet served as a place to learn and discover more about Wikipedia, to test and improve skills, and as a place to really satisfy those desires of wanting to help out. ArbCom really benefits from having a mix of newer and younger admins working alongside seasoned and experienced Arbs. Indeed, the Committee benefits from having a wide and active range of views and opinions and experiences - it's as good to have those who are mainly familiar with writing articles, or organising categories as it is to have those who are very familiar with the daily posts on AN. Step forward and step up.

Meanwhile, thanks to the Committee and to the Clerks for all that they do. SilkTork (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Resignation of SilkTork

2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

The community consultation portion of the functionary appointment process is now open. Editors may ask up to two (2) questions of each candidate (similar to RFA rules). However, since this is a consultation and not a !vote, please refrain from phrasing comments in a support/oppose/neutral fashion.

The vetting process was much quicker than anticipated resulting in the schedule for the rest of the process moving forward.

The Arbitration Committee invites editors to comment and ask questions until 23:59 UTC on September 23, 2023.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cabayi (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Community consultation phase open

Jared Ball

User:Jaredball claims to be Jared Ball and regularly updates the page as such. He was warned of this COI in 2020 and has continued to edit his own page. Moreover, he has eliminated mention of his short presidential run in 2008 on multiple occasions.--User:Namiba 16:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User_talk:Jaredball, case-sensitive. RudolfRed (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I username blocked him with the template making it clear how to verify. He did this then was very angry I didn’t unblock at once. Bit as I was asleep of course I didn’t, although I did before having breakfast. He then made sarcastic comments and another personal attack and said he was leaving. As he might come back a couple of eyes on him and his article might be good, He also edited his talk page logged out and when asked not to continued until I blocked his IP, which of course didn’t affect his account. 19:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 19:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Page move

• [37]

This looks like an unintentional mistake.

I didn't post a note to the user's talk page because, if this needs to be undone, it likely requires tools to do it, and I didn't want to put the user on the spot to try to undo it. Basically trying to reduce complication.

If someone would be kind enough to please take a look into this. - jc37 15:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems resolved, and I've move-protected the essay, given almost all move attempts of that page would be attempts to move the wrong page. Courcelles (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you to you and BD2412 for addressing this. - jc37 16:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Accidental or not, the responsible editor seems to be WP:NOTHERE. Aside from this, all of their edits are adding themselves to articles (granted, probably correctly) and trying to get an article about themselves published. BD2412 T 17:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the link now leads to an error page which says "The revision #1175952999 of the page named "Wikipedia:Userfication" does not exist". Is it possible to make the page name actually link to the page? Animal lover |666| 05:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userfication is at the right place. I can't see deleted edits but I assume the revision is simply the revision showing the creation of a redirect from Wikipedia:Userfication to User:Jimmy Ryan Wiki Draft as a product of the accidental move and has been deleted. While technically it could be undeleted and combined with revision history of Wikipedia:Userfication, I don't see why we'd want to do that. Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, in case anyone isn't aware, if the revision is valid and still visible/not-deleted it should show even if the title in the URL is wrong. See e.g. these semi-random examples I made by removing or substituting a number in the above old ID revision number [38] [39] [40] Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Technophant alt-Medicine topic ban unblock attempt redux

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’m not sure why the last attempt was WP:SNOWBALLed so I will try again. I don’t know how to use the tools to search for a specific revision on a certain article or between a certain date so I’ll just have to go by memory.

• I was definitely causing trouble elsewhere on the wiki.

• I made an a WP:BOLD statement on chronic Lyme or Lyme disease article that contradicts the IDSA dogma.

• I may have one or two R (made one or two reverts) and discussed this.

Administrator (female if I remember) recommended me for a topic ban. Another administrator gave me a permanent topic ban!?

I’ve been a good Wikipedia ever since. END STORY

Also, I admit I was whack-a-doodle on the last topic unban request. I was having a lot of brain inflammation and I really didn’t think it mattered because it’s been almost 10 years and the entire reason for the ban itself was invalid. Meaning that standing alone by itself and not with any other activity outside of the topic of alt-medicine my edits did not warrant an indefinite ban and would not stand up to a review. Technophant (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy links to three previous discussions. 57.140.16.29 (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban, prohibition on further attempts at lifting topic ban for at least two years after most recent attempt. Frankly, I think this is the kindest possible outcome here. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• I echo Yamla's words entirely. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Also agree with Yamla, I don't think I can add anything more that will help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. The phrase, "contradicts the IMDSA dogma," tells me user should not edit in the topic area. When one claims expertise based on past lives, I tend to be dubious of the potential for constructive edits when one does not understand the snow close that resulted. Especially if any of those past lives were before the advent of modern, evidence-based-practice medicine. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose with 2-year moratorium, per Yamla. And yes, I agree that's the kindest thing to do. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose shouldn't have been unblocked and definitely should not be allowed to edit in this topic area. More pseudoscience and RGW. Star Mississippi 01:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If ANYBODY can prove the validity of the original topic ban please do it. When a body like the IDSA makes a guideline that’s contradictory to European guidelines and generally disproven and distrusted for other specialists there’s a lot more to talk about. A lifelong block based on what revision exactly? Go find it and base your blocks on science not emotion. “I don’t like their opinions” is just discrimination. Technophant (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose As I said in July at the time of the last appeal, "I do not think that it would be good for the encyclopedia to lift this topic ban." I think the same way today. The non-neutral phrase "IDSA dogma" is solid evidence the the topic ban should remain. Cullen328 (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2023 (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.

WMF banner fundraising campaign 2023 - collaboration and updates

Dear all,

This is a friendly reminder for anyone interested in the Wikimedia Foundation’s upcoming banner fundraising campaign on English Wikipedia to continue to share your banner ideas and look at our latest update on the collaboration page. This upcoming month is crucial in our testing operations, and the page has an update on new messaging and tests we performed based on volunteer suggestions. While the page will remain open through the end of the campaign, we are best able to test and incorporate your ideas over the coming 3-5 weeks. Please reach out to me with any questions. JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Consent block templates

I recently came across the template {{ConsentBlock}}, and the redirects {{Consentblock}} and {{Consent block}}. While the former is a block template in its own right, the latter two redirect to {{VRT block}}.

It seems at least a little strange to me that slight differences in spacing/capitalisation from the name of one template redirect to a different template. I was considering starting a discussion at RfD, but given as it’s only administrators who’ll use these, I thought it’d probably be worth getting some thoughts at AN (either instead of or before RfD).

Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 17:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Has that VRT block notice ever been used in 17 years?! SN54129 17:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it's used on 3 IP addresses. Secretlondon (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

User talk:212.219.177.34 has been blocked since 2010. User talk:209.174.229.138 since 2011. User talk:64.85.181.66 since 2010. Secretlondon (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• {{ConsentBlock}} should be redirected to {{VRT block}}, they are used for the same purpose and the latter template has more up-to-date instructions. At one time these referred to Wikipedia:Consented blocks, which has been marked as a failed proposal since 2007. {{Consentblock}} was deleted at TfD in 2008. I'm not sure it's coincidence that it was restored by Avraham on the same day that Hersfold created {{ConsentBlock}}, less than half an hour apart actually. The second one was discussed at TfD again in 2009 and kept. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

But also, there does not seem to be consensus that these blocks are appropriate (the proposal enabling them explicitly did not have consensus) and this sort of block goes against WP:NOTPUNITIVE. We should be having that discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like there's really no purpose for any of these templates, and they should thus be deleted. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Complaint about Miki Filigranski

Sock-B-Gone applied.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I am a newcomer here. A long time user and finally have time to contribute. My specific area of interest is the noble Zrinski family of Croatia. I have encountered an "editor" with the user name Miki Filigranski who acts in a controlling manner over some Zrinski related articles - he appears to be acting as "boss man". Wikipedia guidelines say " Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Towards me he is neither of those three. He has deleted contributions willy-nilly with minimal reasons given. When I have asked for feedback he ignores me, has deleted Talk comments I have left to resolve this issue and someone has blocked me from editing the article "Subic Family". I assume it is Miki Filigranski , but when I asked him about it he ignores me. The article in question, which he apparently dominates and controls, over the years has not improved much - which is a shame because the Zrinski family was one of the greatest of Croatian families at the time. He adds "data" which is questionable and when asked to validate, he has ignored me. The issue is specifically his statement "The Šubić family, also known initially as Bribirščić" and he uses a source that does not reference the origins of the name "Bribirščić" - which is a modern invention. That name was never used in any old history books. I feel like I am being treated in a dismissive and demeaning manner and that is far from "assume good faith" and "be welcoming to newcomers. NikolaZrinski (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC) @NikolaZrinski By bringing this matter to this noticeboard you have fired probably the largest gun that any editor can fire. Was it your intention to use such a large weapon? I make no criticism of your action, I simply wish you to understand it. If this was an error you can correct that by saying so. Before you dismiss this out of hand, perhaps you ought to be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. I make no comment about it, I am simply raising your awareness. I have no horse in this race. I simply do not like to see new editors arrive in a whole world of pain by accident. What they do on purpose is their business. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC) Ah, no matter, you appear to have been blocked. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

AIV is Backed Up

There are currently 20+ reports at AIV. I am going to start at the top and work down. If someone can start at the bottom and work up we can meet in the middle and clear out the backlog. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

AIV is now clear. Assist is much appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help out. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidate appointed

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editor to the functionary team:

• DatGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is appointed as a CheckUser.

The committee thanks all members of the community who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cabayi (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: candidate appointed

Required disclosure for admin paid advising

There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new COI disclosure requirement for admins. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The dev gave me 10,000 coins, I'm rich in this game. I'm fuckin' rich! El_C 22:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That RfC...

...is still open. There have been no new comments for a week. This is why you guys get your 100% pay increase and a mop. Get to work, and preferably produce a close longer than a paragraph. Otherwise, out of sheer irritation, I might just close it myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ew. I think I slept through that so I'm as uninvolved as it gets. I might close it tomorrow afternoon (UTC) if nobody beats me to it (and I'm feeling particularly masochistic). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Kudos to you (or anyone else) tackling that mess. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There. Can I have my bonus now if I promise to declare it? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Well done. I think a bonus equivalent to 10% of your yearly mop salary is in order. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

It's already listed at WP:CR, and it's not even the oldest RFC listed at CR. There's nothing about that RFC that makes it more urgent than any other, nor does it need to be closed by an admin. This is not why admins have the mop, waiting a week for comments to dry up before closing is not only reasonable but often best practice, and there's no reason to be irritated that this RfC hasn't been closed yet. Someone will close it in the ordinary course. Levivich (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You can't be serious, Levivich. It's absurd to pretend that a high-profile, high-drama, 3-month long RFC about thousands of articles (with one close vacated a month ago, and any non-admin close almost certain to trigger another round of close review) is no different from a random RFD discussion about one article. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see Levivich saying that, they appear to address the exact context of this discussion not assert that its no different from a random RFD discussion about one article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

StradBot admin bot BRFA

Hello all. I have just made a BRFA for StradBot, for a task to automatically update Module:Disambiguation/templates with a list of disambiguation templates and their redirects. Module:Disambiguation/templates is fully protected due to Module:Disambiguation being used on 15.7 million pages, so the bot will require admin permissions to edit the page. Please take a look at the BRFA and let me know if you have any comments, questions, concerns, etc. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Admin help requested to implement an RfC

Per the recent RfC closure here at Talk:Solitaire, please could an admin help to implement the history merge? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 08:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

RevDel summary

This IP editor is long gone, hasn't edited in several years, and I wanted to suggest that the summary in [41] be revdeled. The excessive Zalgo is making adjacent text difficult to read in the history page. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The relevant criteria would be RD3 possibly. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The button has been pressed. —Cryptic 00:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

And the Zalgo edit summary blew up so much it exploded.

(Thank you so much though!) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Backlog at steward requests (meta)

If any stewards are around and looking for something to do, the requests for global [b]locks page currently has a backlog of 281 requests, the oldest stretching back to the start of July. Thanks in advance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Jack Petchey

Can both of AntiMatterzzz edits be struck? [42], I consider them rude and offensive. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done and user warned. GiantSnowman 08:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you GS, much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please remove some of my rights

(posting here since that is what Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions says, feel free to move to ANI if the guidance there is wrong) Please remove my

• Mass message sender
• File mover

rights. I'm hoping to slowly return to activity and the other rights might still come in handy but I'm probably not going to be moving files or sending messages. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for the previous work, hope you still find some ways to enjoy contributing in other areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thenotoriousbiggie

→ Recently created account, definately not here to build encyclopedia, they are adding content with pov ridden language and doesn't care much about 3R rule either - (diff), (diff), (diff) (likely WP:OR as well)

→ They refused to discuss the matter on talk page citing their lack of experience - (diff)

→ On Muhammad Ghuri article as well they are removing sourced content deceptively as can be seen here (diff), early days, still a block is strongly recomended. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 12:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

1) I havent added any content with pov ridden language I have clearly mentioned all the reliable sources and I have even edited my content after your suggestion but you refuse to talk with me and did not reply at your talk page instead you keep removing and modfiying my content deceptively without any legitimate reason.

2) What are you talking about I never refused to discuss disputed matter you were saying the word 't/p' I simply aked you what is 't/p' as I am new but you refused to explain that to me and instead you removed my content. (diff)

3) I never removed any sourced material I only removed unsourced line which is historically disputed.(diff)

4) I even asked you for your help as I am new but instead of guiding me you removed everything that I edited which contains information that can be highly beneficial for encyclopedia and is taken from historically reliable sources (diff) Thenotoriousbiggie (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed by Bbb23. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

socks

This is a notification on sock issues that I found in ta.wiki and I report here and admin can take action. Please check CheckUser. There are 6 socks + possibly another at Draft. Just for your information. AntanO 13:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other

• Editorialseer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tamilpoetrycritic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Artcriticarmenia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tigranhzor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aivazovkyan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Superpes15: I think I found a few more accounts -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Many thanks for the ping! Indeed Tamilpoetrycritic and Aivazovkyan are not registered on tawiki, this starts to be a cross-wiki issue, will evaluate the situation better at this point ;) Superpes15 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I will add these accounts as well

• VictorGevork (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Uirpitchai (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AznavourTankyan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

this should probably get listed at WP:SPI -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont know where to put this

The google app on mobile leads to en.wikipedia.org instead of en.m.wikipedia.org when using the button in the knowledge panel. 166.205.222.16 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand you, but issues with Google knowledge panels are not our concern; you will need to contact Google. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the Google algorithms have detected that the fully functional desktop site works just fine on mobile devices, and that the mobile site, on the other hand, is still an impediment to collaborative editing, after many years of unsuccessful efforts to improve it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

block

Block the user‎ Herapalace - Frequent vandalism The Escape of the Seven Muatsem90 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You have not left a notice on User:Herapalace's talk page, which you must do. I have done so for you. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As for the actual issue at hand, it seemingly doesn't belong at AN, but there's merit to making a report. Herapalace and Muatsem90 are edit warring at The Escape of the Seven over the genre, but Herapalace's preferred version (fantasy) isn't supported by the source, at least by my quick glance, and their edit leaves an easter egg anyhow. I'll drop them a note in a bit. (edit: note has been dropped) Tessaract2^Hi! 20:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

request to lift or narrow topic ban

This is regarding the topic ban imposed on me on 2022-09-17 regarding the subject areas of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. I request this either be lifted or else that it be narrowed to apply only to the topic of love jihad. Fabrickator (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Link to discussion which led to the ban. [43] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Fabrickator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• oppose per User_talk:Fabrickator#Topic ban violations I'm afraid user has been in violation of the topic ban and has been trying to induce others to edit on their behalf.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I think it's inaccurate to characterize my communication as a case of "trying to induce others to edit on [my] behalf". Admittedly, the involved admin had used this wording, though he did not actually allege that is what I had done. What I actually had done was to point out that the guidance as stated when adding a [disputed section] tag required providing an explanation on the talk page for having added the tag. While I'm not suggesting that you intentionally misrepresented the situation, it could leave others with the impression that I was actually attempting to work around the restriction that was in place, and discourage them from expressing the opinion that my request should be honored. Fabrickator (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

    Fabrickator, what do you mean by "the involved admin had used this wording"? To whom are you referring? DanCherek (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The post that called out the violation is at User talk:Fabrickator#Topic_ban_violations. It's actually an IP address, so I guess I misspoke referring to this wording as having been made by an admin. The point is that in the case of this specific violation, the wording in which I allegedly attempted to induce others to post content "on my behalf" was a request to the user to describe the reason for having added the {{dispute}} tag to the article, as per the provided guidance on using such tags (see edit of User talk:Fabrickator/Topic Ban Violations). Fabrickator (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You have explained one of the edits. The editor also called out this one. Why do you ignore that when you need to be scrupulously honest to have your ban lifted? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this point. I wasn't trying to hide anything, but I find it challenging enough to post something and make sure all the links go to the right place, which I paticularly want to be careful of in the context of this sort of discussion.

Here is the 9 November 2022 edit of Cattle slaughter in India that I was alerting the editor to. As pointed out in the edit comment, the text present in the 23 October 2022 revision of Cattle in religion and mythology stated "scope, extent and status of cows throughout ancient India", while in the target article, it states "scope, extent and status of cows throughout during ancient India". (This is in the last sentence of the edited text.) It appears to be that the word during was extraneous and had been inserted as a simple editing error. I suggested to the editor to correct that, something that would not seem to reasonably be considered as nefarious on my part. Fabrickator (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Map Hoax of Inca Empire

Hello. I have realized that some images of the expansion of the Inca Empire seem to be a hoax (the map is all the way down) In short, on the web you can find a lot of maps that are literally the map of Inca expansion by John Rowe (who made a general chronology in the 1940’s accepted by most expert, even though it doesn’t coincide with some archeological data. This is the chronology seen on all Wikipedia articles concerning the Inca, most importantly for reign dates), here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inca_Expansion.svg (Sorry, I have no Idea how to do interwiki links), with the first out of two "Tupac Inca" (i.e Inca Emperor Tupac Yupanqui, but under the reign of his father, the second being the conquests he did under his own reign) having conquered everything he conquered, but the second one only having conquered Chimor, and Huayna Capac (and this is important) having supposedly made huge conquests south. The fact that this user made Chimor conquered by Tupac Yupanqui is historical, (in the case of the Inca Empire it is said by some chroniclers and continued by virtually all historians of the subject), but most historians, including John Rowe (Which by the way, no academic source had ever done such a map before. There was Rowe’s map, and this hoax is a direct copy of Rowe’s map but with the info changed), situate the conquest of chimor under his father's reign, Pachacuti. The problem here is that no source, no chronicle, no academic book, before and after this could-be hoax, ever, and I mean ever said that Huayna Capac conquered all of this. It’s probably not a deliberate hoax, but it is original research. Maybe this doesn’t originate in Wikipedia, because I’ve not found anything too old for now, but as long as not a single academic source (XVI century chronicles don’t mention this, i.e pretty much the only sources don’t mention this, so for me it’s clear), should this really be on Wikipedia ?

Here are some exemples, like this classic I just finished describing : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inca-expansion-map.png (the original and reliable one is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Expansion_Imperio_Inca-1-.JPG, if your familiar with the subject give it some sources, sadly I’m to lazy for that)

And here, this one being… very creative : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empèri_Inca.png Reman Empire (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Original research (or POV pushing, or just plain fantasy) is a frequent feature of maps found on Commons. Unless they can be verified to be cited to, and based solely on, a single valid source, they aren't WP:RS, and shouldn't be used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that they are. Specifically (I can’t speak Spanish or Occitan fluently to remove them there without getting seen as a vandal) the Occitan Article about the Inca Empire (labeled good article) has the second map on it, and the Spanish one uses these en masse. These https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachacuti-conquest.png, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tupac-inca-conquest.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Late-intermediate-peru.png are also used quite often, including on the English wiki. More specifically I’ve removed them from Pachacuti, while theyr still on Topa Inca Yupanqui and possibly some other pages. On wikimedia you can see these last ones are used, tragically, on so many articles, that's a lot of work left. The Inca Empire being a subject where interpretation is often wide in historiography, this has probably gone through the radar.

Regards, Reman Empire (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Heck the "source" for the Occitan map is literally "Own Work". Worse, the source for the first and main hoax (the one reverting the original by Rowe, and the one now easily findable on the web through a simple google search) is also "Own Work". That should be enough for deletion, right ? Reman Empire (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, Commons is run by people who don't think that being complete crap is a valid reason to delete content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we at least put some warnings on these maps? The only map that has a warning of "lacks source" on it is the only map that apparently is correct? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a Template:Fact disputed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

After further research the original version of this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inca_Expansion.svg, (i.e one of the two maps I think are correct) was also the potential hoax, but the user who created it changed it. I have seen this type of map (the current one, not the Hoax) on a lot of works, including Rowe's, and so I changed the source to one of Rowe’s books, before removing it again because of that History of the map. I don’t know when or how this came to be (I’m starting to think this has its origine on another site), but the one thing I’m sure of is that 1. This map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inca-expansion-map.png was never in any academic work, at least not before the 2010s, 2. Most often maps of Inca expansion don’t coincide fully with what the historian supporting it's use actually writes (Do to the wide range of possibilities and interpretations), but, for exemple, no historian has ever, ever, ever to this day, wrote that Inca Emperor Huayna Capac conquered all of that land south and 3. that some of these are clearly above all original research: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Late-intermediate-peru.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empèri_Inca.png. In other subjects this may be excepted since there are clearly outlined facts and data, but the Inca Empire, as a Precolombian state with no writing system we could decipher, is a subject where so much is possible that just making a map out of your head from what some XVIth century chronicle you’ve read says, and then slapping "Own Work" on it, can not correctly inform people. Reman Empire (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting range block on IP range belonging to "49.206..."

IP range belonging to "49.206..." making disruptive changes against policies like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and edit warring. May be an LTA.
IP addresses belonging to the range - [44] [45]
Pages frequented by the IP range - [46] [47] [48] as well as numerous transport related articles from the southern Indian states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. So would like to request range-block or partial range block on these IP range. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Judging from the editing area (Karnataka, and transport related), seems like an IP sock of LTA User:Lokeshwaran V R, see the SPI case page [49]. See the editing history ([50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]) and the warnings for disregard of WP:COMMONNAME on their talk page [57]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

More IPs from the range - [58] [59]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked 49.206.128.0/22 for a month. Please let us know if the disruption spreads outside that range. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I would definitely. Thank you. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Deleting an image I uploaded

I uploaded the wrong image on Wikipedia commons and I want help removing it Capreolkid (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will be deleted as copyright violations in no time. Bedivere (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I"m pretty sure you can just speedy delete it by tagging it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If no one else has edited it, tag it as {{db-author}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Challange of RfC closure (will discuss first)

Talk:Operation Underground Railroad#RfC: Reliability of sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1177878538 FormalDude (talk · contribs) weirdly closed this RFC claiming that there has been consensus, which obviously isnt the case. Please someone look over it --FMSky (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that FMSky has not contacted me about the closure to try to resolve the issue through discussion per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I see a clear consensus of editors agreeing that the RfC should be closed and the content included in the body and lede. I'm not sure what the objection here is. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The link says "other closures (including requests for comment[5]) are discussed at WP:AN."

The rfc initally had no consensus. Then when new sources came out, there was consensus to CLOSE this rfc and start a new one with these new sources. Please read again --FMSky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard" (emphasis mine). I would've been happy to discuss your concerns with you (and still am), but coming here minutes after my close is jumping the gun.

And I'm still not sure how that's an objection as I made no comment about whether another RfC is needed, though more than half the people agreeing it should be closed explicitly mentioned that a new RfC is not needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, i will discuss it with you first then. This can be closed.---FMSky (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

FMSky has been a disruptive presence at that talkpage and the related Tim Ballard, arguing against the consensus of other editors that mainstream news publications reporting on Vice's investigation means that it is due to be included in the article. They've also been a disruptive presence on the talkpage of What is a Woman?, Including at one point arguing that the term anti-trans "could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies" [60], seemingly as facetious trolling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the topic, not the user. The rfc initally had no consensus. Then when new sources came out, there was consensus to CLOSE this rfc and start a new one with these new sources. Please read again --FMSky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read about the concept of WP:BOOMERANG. The problem here is you, not FormalDude's close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you focus on the topic at hand --FMSky (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The topic at hand here is you, as all the problems at the OUR article that resulted in the RFC in the first place were caused by your disruptive editing. I'm not the only editor to have had enough of your behaviour, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#What Is a Woman?. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, that feeling is mutual. However I'm here to improve articles, and will continue to do so within the guidelines of this site. It is my right to challenge an rfc close i deemed incorrect. you attacking me for a completely unrelated topic doesnt change that. -- FMSky (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely topic banned FMSky from the articles broadly constructed under AP CT procedures for not listening to others, edit warring, bludgeoning discussions, and displaying ownership over the articles. No comment on any further sanctions against FMSky or others. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: 1-year transgender 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.

---

Survey

• Support as proposer - as raised by Hemiauchenia above, in September 2023, when another editor used this Pink News source, which gives the description of the anti-trans What Is a Woman? film, FMSky argued that the source doesnt say "anti-transgender", as that term could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies [61] [62]. Noting that the source Pink News is focused on LGBT content, and that the source does not discuss any anti-transglutaminase antibodies at all, and even mentions transgender in the source. Wikipedia:Competence is required to edit this topic, and FMSky has failed to demonstrate that by having egregiously misread the source. starship.paint (RUN) 01:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's obnoxious and concerning, but that one exchange isn't really enough to add an additional tban. There is perhaps an argument that the tban applied above should've been a typical AP tban given the combination of issues at Ballard, etc. and What Is a Woman, but given where we are now I think you'll need more diffs to substantiate this being needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: - consider the context, FMSky first started editing the article by removing anti-transgender and transphobic from the lede, despite six sources cited, on 16 June, then did it again on 24 August, with the comments: WP:WEIGHT, just as many sources dont see it like that and no need to highlight these fringe viewpoints, especially in the lead respectively. Over this time, FMSky also shifts the anti-transgender and transphobic further down the body six times despite being continually reverted: 16 July / 24 August / 25 August / 26 August first time / 26 August second time / 26 August third time. After this clear campaign to de-emphasize these terms, FMSky then objected to equating "anti-trans" to "anti-transgender", but now admits that they actually know "anti-trans" means "anti-transgender", yet they decided to initiate a talk page discussion objecting to that characterisation, thereby wasting the time of six other editors, and now admits that they actually provided a sarcastic reply, despite never mentioning this before, not even in the above discussion. This is disruptive behaviour. starship.paint (RUN) 13:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  That was a sarcastic reply, I thought that was obvious. It was to demonstrate that it was essentially original research as it didn't specifically say anti transgender and could theoretically mean anything. If you block me from that topic area you would have to do the same with the other user that agreed with me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=next&oldid=1174314760 FMSky (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, to be clear, I believe this is the reference in question? And if I have that right, then your position is that "anti-trans" as used in the subhead could "theoretically mean anything" and to say it refers to transgender is original research? Dumuzid (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I know that it means anti transgender. But it didn't outright say it, that's my point. Imo when citing text we should say exactly what the sources say FMSky (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Anti-trans" is so obviously "anti-transgender" in this context, though? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Its obviously either transgender or transsexual --FMSky (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

...am I being trolled? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No why? I think these are the most common meanings (I could be wrong though, I'm not an expert on this). Im really not sure what you guys want from me so I'm not going to comment here any further --FMSky (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support for deliberately disingenuous conduct at the What Is A Woman talk page as highlighted by the nomination - for example, the "anti-transglutaminase" thing in the nomination, and accusing other editors who voted against his RSC of wanting "info suppressed from this page to make them feel better". I also would not oppose an AP TBAN, because the conduct at these articles has been less than acceptable - see, for example, describing Vice as a "biased far left outlet" while trying to argue against inclusion of something, before a week later adding Vice as a source to the Tim Ballard article, which is a BLP. I could go on. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That comment was struck out by me afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=next&oldid=1177214005 and there are actually doubts about WP:VICEs reliablitly --FMSky (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so you doubt a source's reliability and call it "biased" and "far-left", but you add it a few days later to a BLP, for which there's even more stringent sourcing policies? Something's not adding up. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, the comment about anti-transglutaminase is revolting enough, but then FMSky is playing dumb on this very discussion (here). Clearly not fit for the topic area. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - In a WP:CTOPICS area, I found their behavior problematic at that talk page. I also find their answers/comments about the Pink News source disingenuous, considering the topic of the article, and their edits to the article, here, here, here, and here. They undoubtedly knew what anti-trans meant, but sill insisted on the talk page that since its doesnt say anti-transgender so its WP:OR. And then when a discussion didn't achieve consensus for content they wanted in the lead, they opened a RfC which participants also agreed that this rfc was disruptive, as the previous discussion was also opposed to adding the text. They also pestered editors about not watching the film: you obviously haven't even watched them film you're commenting about, You probably havent watched the film, and this question to me - Why are you voting if you havent even watched the film. In my view, watching a film shouldn't be a condition for commenting in a RfC. I made one more comment and then left the discussion, due to the "chilly" reception I received. And then there was this insinuation about the motives of editors commenting in the RfC: I have accepted now that people want the info suppressed from this page to make them feel better, so whatever, which they were asked to strike, and instead just removed their reply and other editors replies with a whatever edit summary. It was rightfully restored later by another editor and the comments were then struck. I think a topic ban in this area is reasonable, considering their comments on just this one article's talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support As I noted previously, they just seem to be a trolling account that is actively being disruptive across a number of articles related to this topic. They continuously make new threads on talk pages over and over, arguing every single point to death when they don't get their way because the majority of editors do not agree with them. It's tendentious to a degree of insanity and unhelpful on actually improving any of the articles. They do not seem to be here to make the project better, but to instead push their POV on this specific topic area. Hopefully a topic ban from this subject will allow them to be more productive elsewhere, though I'm rather doubtful about that. Silverseren^C 16:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, although I think an extension of the ban to American politics might also be needed because some disruptive areas like Sound of Freedom (film)/Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) and Killing of Jordan Neely/Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely aren't covered under either the specific page blocks above or this topic ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom is covered by being related to Tim Ballard, which i have been banned from --FMSky (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that error at the same time you did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Honestly, I think there's a lot more evidence for a topic ban from AP, where FMSky edits frequently and is consistently disruptive, than from GENSEX, which they edit relatively infrequently. However, because of the large overlap between the categories and because of how egregious the "anti-trans" argument was I'm still in support of a GENSEX topic ban. Loki (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I am unimpressed with their intransigence and their generally disruptive nature; they would be better off editing a subject area that does not so thoroughly demand knowledge, carefulness, and a full understanding in order to edit constructively. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The problem with this proposal is that I edit dozens of BLPs every, some of them happen to be trans without me even knowing. So if I just do some basic formatting in these types of articles which I often do (such as correcting date formats etc) would that be a violation too? That seems needlessly excessive. 🤷‍♂️ --FMSky (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely it would be a violation. Slow down and read articles before editing them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that this whole discussion is a massive violation of WP:FOC. I started this thread because of something completely different. What is all this pile-on because of a completely unrelated talk page entry of me in the past??? --FMSky (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Your own behavior may be scrutinized any time you post at a noticeboard. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know, I will think twice about visiting this page again in the future then.

I have obviously made mistakes in the past, i acknowledge that, no one is perfect. I try to improve as a user every day and i generally take criticism very seriously as to not make the same mistakes twice --FMSky (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think a topic ban because of behaviour in a single article is a bit excessive tbh --FMSky (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

At least five articles have been mentioned along with a number of associated talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would anyone's behaviour change between different articles anyway? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2023 (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.

ArbCom Electoral Commission nominations open

Nominations for the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections are now open. — Frostly (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Frostly. Admins, this is a self-nomination and volunteers are needed! The commission is short-term and the primary duty is to help make final decisions about edge cases that may occur. If you are not going to run for arbcom and have experience dealing with user related issues, this may be a good fit for you. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 11:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The page of Geneva School of Diplomacy and International relations has been deleted

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,

We would like to bring to your quick attention that the page of Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Switzerland, has been deleted and no notification explaining the reason was sent.

We would like the page reinstated ASAP. We suspect conflict of interest with such deletion. Thank you for your quick attention and action. GSD Communication Team (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You will need to change your username to something more individualistic, please see your user talk page. You will also need to make a formal paid editing disclosure.

The subject of an article is not typically notified that the article is being deleted, unless they already have an account and are monitoring it in their watchlist.

Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations was deleted in 2021 as a copyright infringement, but perhaps you are referring to something more recent? 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Request for a Soft Global Block

Can any admin wp:globalblock and wp:softblock to m:special:centralauth/corcelles? The username very closely resembles to courcelles.197.14.249.108 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

How about no? The resemblance is almost certainly coincidental, rather than impersonation. See previous discussion. [63] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes

Hey man im josh

• Alex Bakharev
• CorbieVreccan
• Cyphoidbomb
• Davodd
• Hog Farm
• JamesR
• KnightLago
• Mark Ironie
• Nosebagbear (deceased)
• Rschen7754
• Tamzin
• TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

DatGuy

• Ferret
• RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Oversighter changes

RickinBaltimore

• TonyBallioni
• Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

86.28.234.5

Repeated non-consensual and non-encyclopedic edits and reverts with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, reverting of starting discussion topic on their Talk page. UA0Volodymyr (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 36h. Please next time report this at WP:ANI. Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:ACE Election Commission - Call for candidates

Hello all, qualified editors are invited to self-nominate for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections Electoral Commission. Those interested should list themselves on this page. Commissioners are empowered to make binding decisions on unexpected or exception issues related to the election, and some other duties specified in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date. This is a single-term position lasting until the end of the December election. Thank you, -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 07:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Ban revision request

A couple of weeks ago I had asked to have my one-way interaction ban with user AldezD revised - not to drop the ban, but to narrow the scope. There was no consensus to do anything. That's OK. Much to my surprise, AldezD came out of a 6-month "retirement", apparently for the sole purpose of harassing me. Given this,[64] I would ask that the indefinite one-way ban be extended to an indefinite two-way ban. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. If he's retired, it doesn't affect him, and if he isn't, it appears it might very well be needed anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Taking a second look, that PA is more than just dehumanising. I think in addition to an interaction ban a final warning against all personal attacks is warranted, and if AldezD makes any further personal attacks, they can be blocked from editing for any period of time or indefinitely. Assuming bad faith, calling an editor immature, and dehumanising the poster. I think the revision linked should certainly be revision deleted as well by an admin. I am considering the severity of the personal attack in this comment as well. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I was also about to say the post in that diff link of AldezD's comments looks ageist but it is a bit unclear. I don't want to go too far and make a false accusation, but that is one of the reasons for this. If they don't come back to Wikipedia then it won't affect them, and if they do, it hopefully gets them away from the areas of dispute. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Since there was very recently consensus against loosening the restriction, and given the other editor's gross overreaction to being inadvertently pinged one time in a discussion clearly falling within WP:BANEX, I think it's reasonable to make this a two-way IBAN. As for your earlier request: sanctions aren't meant to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head forever. If you edit something and then someone goes through the history to find that the edit was actually contrary to your ban, apologize and revert and that should be the end of it. But also, if you want to be able to quickly check for a particular editor's edits to any page, the User History script here will add that filter to the standard history page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support (Non-anyone comment) I absolutely agree. AldezD has either retired (in which case they won't be affected) or they haven't, and they think that calling people "Goblins" is acceptable behavior. Their entire post yesterday was wholly disingenuous, up to and including the claim that they were 'harassed', an extremely serious claim, which was patently not true (since it appears that BB has not even mentioned them in the last six months). Frankly, I believe they deserved sanctioning for it at the time, but that's in the past. Incidentally, this seems to have originally been a six-month IB, which was extended following a self-request. Is that the case? Serial 18:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • If you're asking me, yes, it was to be six months and I asked for it to be indefinite. If I had known he was going to "retire", I would have agreed to the 6 months plan, and wouldn't have asked about it a couple of weeks ago. And when I was hit with this unexpected barrage yesterday, at first I wondered if the account had been compromised. I also don't recall pinging (or "tagging", as he put it), but maybe something triggered it. He was talking about 10 years ago, or some such, but I never heard of this guy until sometime in the last year or two. So something's not making sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    • When you added a link to their user page at the editing requests talk page, that would have generated an on-wiki notification for them, like this: User:Baseball Bugs. If you don't want that to happen then you can use {{noping}}, like this: Baseball Bugs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh! I didn't realize that. I thought that a ping came from putting User:[whatever] inside pairs of braces. I'm either working off old information or had forgotten it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support two-way IBAN. The ANI discussion opened was unacceptable and the "coming out of retirement" to retaliate was also very unacceptable and uncalled for. Retirement does not provide protection against sanctions. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support two way IBAN. AldezD was way out of line hurling their bizarre "goblin" and "creature" insults. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The "goblin" comment was out of line but I'm trying to look at it from AldezD's perspective. Reading through all the archives and history shows Aldez was very, very much upset by the interactions between him and BB. It was continuous despite numerous requests to stop and it eventually ended up where a non-involved admin put the one-way iban on BB. Later on out of nowhere, the person, who from AldezD's perspective, harassed and annoyed the hell out of them without stopping, comes back with a ping out of the blue. I would say a lot of us would freak out as well especially if the history between them was as one-sided antagonistic as it was. Slap them with a "Don't do that again" for that comment at the very least (which has been done). I think escalating to a two way is premature. spryde | talk 12:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • A personal attack is a personal attack. Calling someone a "goblin" is dehumanizing at the least. If an editor is unable to keep their cool by accidental violations of WP:IBAN or even with behavior where there is consensus that WP:BANEXEMPT applies, then it probably means they should not be interacting with them to begin with. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Sp: can you also explain AldezD's references to BB's "nonsense from 10x years ago" that harasses him? Serial 14:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    No clue about that. I am talking about the interactions 2020-2022. spryde | talk 15:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

    • Indeed. The problem is that it's now harder to confirm the nominator's own statements if they claim to have had literally decade-old issues with BB. Serial 17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Is there a way to create a list of when one user has interacted with another over time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
        • Like if you have responded to each other? I don't know, I looked around and tools like this seem to show when you've both edited the same pages and what the time differential was. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm with spryde on this one. Given the reason for the ban in the first place, I would be more inclined to extend Bugs 1-way ban to explicitly remove any of the usual exemptions. Its not necessary to ping someone you are banned from contacting with to appeal the ban. Sanctioning an editor, who had to go to the lengths of getting someone forcibly restricted from interacting with them for harrassment and stalking, for reacting badly when said editor then pokes them? It seems far too much like enabling harrassment to me. Aldez has been sufficiently chastised for reacting poorly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I was not aware that I was "poking" or pinging the user. I thought I was merely providing a link to the user's page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    • You have been here long enough and are experienced enough, that that excuse has little credibility. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
      • You are mistaken. I don't do pinging as a general rule, so I didn't know that merely linking to a user page would generate a ping. I had thought putting the user name in braces was the way to do a ping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

        "Putting the user name in [double square] braces" and "[wiki]linking to a user page" are identical acts; they both involve writing two open square braces, the characters "User:", the username, and two close square braces. --JBL (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

        Yes, I know that now. But was it always that way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

        • No opinion on the actual interaction details, but I also have no idea what does or doesn't 'ping' a user. In any case, I would say the user should be 'pinged' or otherwise be aware if the other side of an interaction ban is asking for a change in the status of that ban. If the ban had been changed, should that have happened without AldezD knowing a discussion was ongoing? What is the appropriate venue/method for Bugs to make such a request? --Onorem (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

          That's why WP:BANEXEMPT exists - you must notify a user when opening a discussion about them on ANB, and appealing a ban is no exception. In fact, that is the only time a user is allowed to even interact with them during an interaction ban, barring obvious vandalism. Of course there can be restrictions on when appeals may be levied and where they may be levied. Awesome Aasim 14:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  The reaction by AldezD was grossly inappropriate. To quote WP:BANPOL, "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." In this case, this would stop the uncalled retaliatory statements that came out. Retirement does not stop one from becoming sanctioned. Pings can certainly happen at accident; I did not know at the time that linking to a user page would generate a ping; when I figured out, I eventually figured that that is probably included in an interaction ban, except during appeal of the ban. I have also in my early days accidentally pinged people. That is when I made the edit to reword and clarify.

  There is no way to speculate on the future, but if this is how AldezD will react in the event of an accidental violation or if Baseball Bugs were to engage in dispute resolution about the ban, then a two-way IBAN is the appropriate remedy. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Does it matter either way? AldezD only came out of retirement in response to Baseball Bugs's ping (Which we are told was inadvertant) so, if he has really retired from Wikipedia (I am trying hard to work out how that user saw the ping without logging on) then it makes no difference whether he is subject to a ban or not. Just toss a coin to decide the outcome and close this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Are there any rules governing what "retired" actually means? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    @Baseball Bugs WP:RETIRED is an information page that details the process of leaving Wikipedia. A person that is retired has abandoned the account and does not plan on editing at any time in the future. If they are to come back, the same sanctions will apply to them upon return. See WP:CLEANSTART and WP:VANISH. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger AldezD mentioned that they logged in to see what had been going on since their retirement, and that's when they saw the ping. [65] Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Many blocks shouldn't be indef

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

---

Hello. I oftentimes see vandals, suckpuppet accounts or similar getting indef blocked. Many times they are new users testing the waters of Wikipedia. I think such blocks may be overly harsh, specially for new users. My suggestion is if there is need to block, the block should not be indef. For example, instead it could be for a year, giving chance to some users who genuinely want to stop vandalizing or testing to contribute afterwards to become helpful editors.

If they repeat the behavior, then for example, a two year block, then a 4 year block, then an 8 year block. This way, there is a balance between administrator time, dealing with unduly problematic editors and giving chance to other editors to become productive and learn the ropes in Wikipedia. Also, multi-year blocks can give chance for instance to a user who is still maybe an immature teen to pass their phase and in adulthood they might be more mature and be interested in Wikipedia in a more productive way.

This chance doesn't happen if they return and still see their account indef block after 10-15 years. Even though there is an appeal mechanism, most editors probably either just see the block and give up immediately or they think they won't get unblocked and don't return. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Would anyone wait two years before contributing constructively? Assuming run-of-the-mill disruption, the blocked user could easily get unblocked by posting a plausible request after a period which might be as little as a month. Being nice to people is great except that doing that often involves disruption for other editors. A good editor can get tired of monitoring more and more nonsense and may leave if disruption is not controlled. Indefs play a valuable role in saving community time and energy, and they are not forever. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Define "forever". I think I have seen people indefd blocked for 15 years or more with no updates from the initial block if Im not mistaken. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I have seen people indefd blocked for 15 years or more Are you saying that you followed Wikipedia's internal matters for over 7 years before you started editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been around since 2001, although not registered. Also, I was thinking in the date they got blocked not that I saw them getting blocked. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If they're here to be disruptive, they will create sockpuppets anyway (and these will only be discovered if the vandalism is distinctive enough to convince of aikely connection); there's no difference in this context between a month and indef. If they're here to be helpful, and simply don't understand the problems with their edits, a shorter term block will give them time to learn our policies better. Animal lover |666| 06:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

An indef block does not mean "forever". It means "until a convincing unblock request is made". We can't control if people think they won't be unblocked, which would apply even if an end date is put on the block. I've unblocked accounts where the user says "I was a stupid teenager 5 years ago and won't do that stuff again", no problem. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Accounts whose first edits are vandalism virtually never go on to make constructive edits, which is why we block vandalism only accounts. Indef blocks are also not permanent - they can actually be quite short if the user posts an appeal in which they acknowledge their error and make a convincing commitment to not repeat it. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's say I created an account as a teenager, vandalised a few pages, gotten blocked, and then five years later came back with the intention of contributing legitimately: I would have two options available to me. Option A, assuming I could remember the original username and password (or was still using the same email address I was back then), I could log into the old account and request unblock. That would likely be granted, but I think I would be more likely to take Option B, to create an entirely new account and just start editing. Option B is technically a WP:BADSOCK violation, but who would ever know? Nobody would report my new account, because I wasn't being disruptive, and the old account would be stale for CU purposes even if anyone ever did suspect a connection. I expect there are many constructive contributors active on the site, who are technically evading blocks on ancient accounts they used abusively in the dim and distant. Does anyone care? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Indeed, we've had at least one user elected to adminship who acknowledged having taken "Option B". See the examples at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. Part of me thinks we should formalize something like allowing cleanstarts for simple vandalism/DE blocks after 1 year, but at the same time IAR seems to work decently in cases where this has arisen—combined with the fact that, as you say, most people just never mention they're technically socking (cf. User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return and User:Tamzin/Lot's wife.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaking generally: Indefinite is not infinite. Indefinite just means that the behavior is severe enough to warrant a full stop to editing until the poor behavior is addressed in a convincing unblock request. However if you want anything concrete to happen you should probably post specific usernames/blocks that you'd like reviewed. Hard to action anything without diffs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Ok, what about putting a technical limit of 10 years to indef blocks so it doesn't become a permanent block? That means that after 10 years the account is automatically unblocked. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a solution to a problem that has not yet been articulated. What is the problem with the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of extant indef-blocked throwaway vandalism-only accounts remaining blocked? Girth Summit _(blether) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(About a million and a half. —Cryptic 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC))

"giving chance to other editors to become productive and learn the ropes in Wikipedia." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "permanent block", as I said above. I don't think that 10 years would make a difference- this is a solution looking for a problem. Editors have the chance to return and be productive editors- request unblocking. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Out of the millions of "extant indef-blocked throwaway vandalism-only accounts" probably there is a margin of error of at least 1%. That would mean tens of thousands of potential legitimate editors blocked indefinitely. Regarding the appeal, the question is what's the proportion of editors who would be legitimate who are deterred by the sole look of their account still blocked after years vs the proportion who would submit an appeal. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

How have you calculated this MOE? 331dot (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Girth Summit said "possibly millions", then if a margin of error is 1% of possibly millions then it follows "tens of thousands of potential legitimate editors". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. 331dot was asking where you got 1% from. Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes no sense to me. If you created an account years ago, and now want to edit constructively, you'd just create a new account. I see no reason to change the status quo. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a begging of the question. Assuming a 1% margin of error on no evidence and then determining that because of this margin of error that we have tens of thousands of falsely indeffed editors (who chose not to make an unblock request, to boot)? Rather than swinging for the fences, it'd be worthwhile to base your guesswork on some actual statistics. I'd be interested to know if there has been any research done regarding the block ratio of editors, specifically sampling those who were indef blocked but then eventually unblocked, and of that, what percentage of them turned out to be blocked incorrectly and for what reason. I think that's a better way to base the premise of your argument than just picking a random number. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't reach a conclusion. I left it at possibility (notice the key words "if", "probably", "would"). And in statistics a margin of error is included in formulas. I don't think it would be scientific to assume that all blocks are 100% accurate with no margin of error whatsoever, specially if there are "millions" as Girth Summit mentioned.

I support the inquiry you mentioned. I am a regular user so I don't have access to those statistics. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Granted, but a 1% margin of error is not scientifically realistic either, unless you can prove the sigmas are large enough that a 1% MoE is probable. And since we have a very large sample size to draw from with specific circumstances for each block, I do think 1% is an overly high guess at best.

I'm not an admin either. I know there are publicly-available tools out there to analyze Wikipedia activity - likely not the oversight blocks/bans or UTRS appeals, but any other visible ones at least. Perhaps a WikiStatistician can speak to that. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is normal practice in Statistics to include a margin of error between the ranges of 1% and 15% in calculations using formulas. I chose the lowest figure. I ignore what's the sample size you mentioned. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Astonishing. --JBL (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Your input is welcome given that you are a mathematician. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My input is that margins of error are not calculated by people making up numbers between 1% and 15% with no justification whatsoever. Luckily no one has expressed any support at all for this proposal, so there is no risk of the innumeracy on display here having a harmful impact. --JBL (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

So you believe there is absolutely no margin of error in say 100,000 blocks. All are 100% accurate, administrators make no mistakes whatsoever ever. Is that what you are saying? Again, I wouldn't think that would be a proper statistical opinion. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I would not have thought it possible, but your arguments are getting even worse as you go on. --JBL (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of assuming good faith, I must make the following points:

• No one here has suggested there is no margin of error.
• No one has suggested that every block is accurate and perfect and admins don't make mistakes.
• There is no basis for assuming that the margin of error will be 1%, because we don't have a statistical sample to draw from.
• You must understand that margin of error is not a flat number you can just pick out of thin air. When you analyze a sample population based on your independent variables and their dependent outcomes, the margin of error is determined by the standard deviation of your results and the sample size, which is affected by the confidence interval. And in picking the lowest number, the confidence interval is likely what you're thinking of. If you want 99.9% confidence in your results, then great. But the margin of error is resultant on those above factors, just like you can't say 2 + 2 = 7 because 7 sounds like a good number.

I hope this explains things a bit better. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I just realized there is a history between JBL and me, so I am not confident in the editor. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually have pretty much the opposite view. Outside of logged-out editing, where an IP address could be reassigned to an innocent user, most blocks should be indefinite. Blocking is not a punishment; it is merely a technical measure by which we can prevent someone from editing while concerns about their editing need to be addressed. If those concerns are addressed in a satisfactory manner, then we will lift the block. Temporary blocks can and do have a preventative role, especially in edit warring blocks, where they serve to stop the edit warring in the short term and deter future edit warring in the long term—see WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. On the whole, however, I think that temporary blocks are actually more likely to be ineffective and/or seen as "punitive" because it allows a user to simply wait out the block without ever addressing the disruptive behavior. Mz7 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with Mz7. Almost all of the blocks I have imposed on accounts have been indef. IPs are different, since they tend to be impermanent, and there is no point indeffing an IP because an LTA used it one time. But accounts - why do we block them? Because the people using them are not following our policies and guidelines. Does a break from editing make them follow those PAGs? Rarely. Better to say 'You can't edit until you read them, and agree to follow them'. Then, by all means, unblock early and unblock often.

Here is an example: Koitus~nlwiki. I imposed a temporary block on their account, because they were edit warring and insulting people. They returned to insulting people almost immediately after the temporary block expired. It wasn't anything particularly egregious - I think he called his opponent a fool, or something like that - but I reblocked and made it indefinite. They badgered me on my talk page on meta for a few weeks, but I was clear that all they needed to do in order to be unblocked was to commit to abide by the no personal attacks policy. That seems to have been too much for them, so they remain blocked to this day. I see no reason why a block like that should expire automatically, when it would be so trivially easy for the subject of the block to get it lifted.

Folk who genuinely want to contribute here constructively have plenty of guidance on what they need to do to get unblocked. The fact that there are so many indef blocked accounts is mostly due to the fact that some people make numerous accounts to cause trouble, and to a lesser extent because some people stick to one account, but are unwilling to follow the rules agreed upon and imposed by the community. The middle ground between those two positions is a bit of a grey area, but as I've said, people who find themselves there are most likely to just create a new account and hope that the connection to their naughty earlier selves will never be discovered. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems to have been too much for them, so they remain blocked to this day. I see no reason why a block like that should expire automatically, when it would be so trivially easy for the subject of the block to get it lifted. To me, I think this speaks volumes. Vandalism-only accounts who get blocked and then are specifically told what process they need to follow likely cannot think of a justification any more sophisticated than "I did it for lulz lmao" so they don't even bother. On the other hand, contributors who feel they have been grossly wronged or blocked by an egregiously aggressive admin will generally make an unblock request, and they are armed with all of the appropriate resources to do so. Possibly the only thing that our process doesn't really cover in WP:NOTTHEM is how to handle the latter case of an overzealous cowboy admin, but even then, it suggests asking for input from an WP:UNINVOLVED admin.

Wikipedia has over 6.7M articles. Let's not bend over backwards for editors who want to ruin them. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I noticed there seems to be a consensus against my proposal of 10 year limit for indef blocks. But I don't think such a limit constitute much of "bending over backwards for editors who want to ruin [articles]". I was thinking of potential legitimate editors who outgrow their vandalism phase and give them an automatic chance after 10 years. Not really the same like lifting a block after a month or even a year. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

And I was thinking of all of the Willy on Wheels accounts that were blocked more than 10 years ago but will now automatically get their chance at redemption. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose this, as this is neither kindergarten nor a remedial school. A new user to the site must have the competence to comport themselves to the social norms of the community they are joining, and if they cannot manage that simple task, then they do not belong here, frankly. A user who has made mistakes but shows a willingness to learn from them should be able to articulate an unblock rationale good enough to get an indefinite block lifted. Call it a Wiki-Litmus Test. Zaathras (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• This isn't 2006, when I started. The website is a big deal now, compared to what it was, so the standard for blocking have, and should, change. Most new users coming in vandalising, yes, should be indef. Sometimes I will block for a few days if they did some good stuff and some bad stuff, to see if I can get the point across. When I have followed up, the vast majority of time, they either never came back, or went back to vandalising. Rarely did any come back to contribute in a positive manner. So to agree with the above, we probably need MORE indef blocks, not fewer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• No This has loads of problems. As stated above, this is already meaningless. If an editor wants to be unblocked, they can request so. What this would do is unblock thousands upon thousands of bad faith accounts, some of which were operated by extremely abusive LTA's who would most certainly use this hypothetical update to their advantage, attacking this website with their numerous now-unblocked accounts, which would take forever to reblock. And, for all our hard work, they would just get unblocked again in another 10 years. No way. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  By the nature of being a LTA, they are likely doing this anyway with new accounts. If anything, re-using a previously blocked account would be easier to spot. 216.126.35.137 (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• The spirit is more important than the letter. The purpose of blocking is to prevent imminent disruption. A disruptive editor with legitimate interest in contributing positively will do what I did - appeal their block after a reasonable amount of time and agree to conditions to editing. On the other hand, a person creating a throwaway account to vandalize will likely only come back if they have a genuine interest to contribute positively. If someone did one thing 15 years ago, I don't think we would care. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems to work well now. Often not true when you try to fix something that isn't broken. If this was an RfC, it would be snowing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Although I'm "involved", I kindly suggest that an admin close this. The discussion is proceeding to a point where not only is the consensus clear that the proposed solutions are problematic, but the discourse - such as it currently is - has the potential to become even more unpleasantly contentious if allowed to persist. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:30, 5 October 2023 (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.

Wellington Bay unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Wellington Bay (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed. For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bell (British Army officer)

Would appreciate some thoughts and eyes on this. The subject of the article has requested that the article be deleted: Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll format it properly in a minute, but I don't see anything wrong with someone nominating a page for deletion. I've also removed the quote from the original post due to its content. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure this needed to be raised here. Have commented at the AfD page. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Please Help Me

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

---

Hello, I'm Aviram7 but I unable to edit our main account @User:Aviram7 due to lost of password and gmail or my main account protected from 2 Factor, so, I unable to recover to old data due to phone format, Then I created yesterday alt account of @Aviram7. please see this.ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aviram7 (alt): Admins cannot recover your password. You are allowed to start using a new account, provided the old account is no longer used. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for reply, my main account already stopped by probelm , no more edit but they contains specific user right like, Pcr, rollback etc,any admin can I transform userright from Aviram7 to Aviram7 (alt) because I going to continue editing on Wikipedia from this account. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 05:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell, ToBeFree, and Oshwah: Can you help about that because I'm in trouble and unable editing from main account on Wikipedia due to password lost, gmail lost and other phone data , I'm confirmed I'm Aviram7, please help me. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 05:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Aviram7 (alt) I can verify that you’re the same person as Aviram7 via CU. @AmandaNP, can stewards still reset 2FA in cases like this or does this now need to go to Phabricator? Courcelles (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If I interpret meta:Help:Two-factor authentication and wikitech:Password and 2FA reset#Wikimedia or wikitech two factor authentication removal correctly, disabling 2fa in cases where the scratch codes are unavailable or when the password has been forgotten in a way Special:PasswordReset can't fix requires you to be a developer with shell access to the mwscript command, or a member of one of the following groups: staff, sysadmin, or wmf-supportsafety Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles and Victor Schmidt: Hello, everyone, I trying to recover gmail who attach with my main account, Can staff or stewards are able to change gmail of any Wikipedia account, if it's recovery couldn't possible?. Kind regardsÀvîRâm7^(talk) 14:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have granted you the same user groups as your original account. Please contact Trust and Safety at cawikimedia.org, explaining your situation. Since you have lost your email account that was associated with your original Wikipedia account, they may not be able to help you, but it is worth a try. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Courcelles: yep we can't do anything, the email T&S @ this above is the correct process. -- Amanda (she/her) 00:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Thanks for understanding my probelm and also thank for reply here and I'll try to contact trust and safety. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 15:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I already mentioned I also lost our gmail Id who attach to main wikipedia account, then who I contact Trust&Saftey team, I'm unable to recover gmail Id due to 2 Fa protection, who to I contact there and I also decide to continue work on Wikipedia from this alternative account.Kind regards ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 02:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

But continuous efforts are being made to recover the Gmail of the main account of my Wikipedia. As soon as the main account and Gmail are recovered, a reply will be given from the main ID in this section.Kind regards ÀvîRâm7^(talk) 17:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz, Courcelles, and Victor Schmidt:, Hello everyone ! I have recovered our main account. My alternate account will no longer be used for editing and please remove all right from my alternative account because I'm back right known, so we are using only main account for editing on Wikipedia, alternative are not now use in and thanks everyone for help. Kind regards Kind regards~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 17:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying 'our' and 'we'? Does anybody else have access to your account? GiantSnowman 17:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Hello! not at all, anyone is not access my account;I only operate our account, I was trouble from few days due to loss of gmail account and password also of my main account but I recover both it.Kind regards~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 18:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Removed here, Sdrqaz (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2023 (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:CheckersBoard unblock request

User indef'ed June 21, 2022 by user:Drmies. Unblocked August 1, 2022 by user:Deepfriedokra with editing restrictions. Indef'ed September 2, 2023 by Drmies for violating terms of unblock. Latest unblock request has been open since September 3, 2023, and has been discussed by Drmies, Deepfriedokra, and me, but seems to have fallen through the cracks. CheckersBoard is requesting a decision.

Note that the user's talk page history is not easy to follow. Material has been inserted out of order, and material has been blanked, or blanked and then restored out of order. Meters (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Meters: What's your pleasure? Have the concerns that led you to oppose unblocking been suitably addressed? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As I said at the time [66] I don't support an unblock, or if the user is unblocked I think they need to be topic banned from topics involving Ringette. Given the user's past history, it would probably be best to expand the topic ban to women's sports in general. Meters (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult to follow the talk page history, but I don't think CheckersBoard has addressed any of my concerns. They have simply stated I'll abide by whatever decision the group wants, the edit history is available to observe. [67] Meters (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

What a confusing mess that talk page is! I see little benefit to unblocking this editor. but if the editor is unblocked, they should be topic banned from Ringette and all previous restrictions should continue in force. Cullen328 (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Have we not spent enough time on this editor? I really don't want to add to that talk page, or to this ANI thread, and I'm perfectly happy to leave this to litterallly almost anyone else. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Block review of MaranoFan by HJ Mitchell

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.

---

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

I'm not involved in this and have not even commented anywhere on or about the current ANI thread or the block. I have MaranoFan on my watchlist from way back and noticed this.

A thread currently on ANI has broad support for an IBAN between MaranoFan and the OP, and no one except the OP has even suggested a block.

HJMitchell indef blocked MaranoFan in the midst of the discussions, citing the ANI thread as rationale.

I have no dog in this fight and if memory serves I have always had good experiences with HJMitchell. It did pique my interest when MaranoFan commented on their usertalk that HJMitchell "has three Taylor Swift userboxes on their userpage" (I personally see two plus "I love Taylor Swift" in his bio details). I don't know if that is relevant, but MF does apparently edit a lot of Taylor Swift material, so it may speak to some amount of personal involvement.

Anyway, the seemingly unprovoked and completely unsupported block merits a review in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please strike the aspersions about HJ? -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 09:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be lovely, @Softlavender. To suggest I would block a long-term editor on a whim is somewhat insulting, to suggest it was motivated by my taste in music is childish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. While we normally tolerate some degree of blowing off steam by editors just blocked, MaranoFan did themselves no favours when after being blocked in part because of their casting aspersions, they thought it a good idea to cast aspersions about the blocking admin. Softlavender coming here and repeating that aspersion is definitely not helping anything. Especially since it's so weird, HJ Mitchell blocked an editor because they like Taylor Swift and MaranoFan sometimes opposed content on Taylor Swift (or something like that, frankly I don't really understand what is being suggest probably because it's so ridiculous)? Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Apparently, there's a fans' feud between them that makes the East Coast–West Coast hip hop rivalry of the 1990s look like a Teddy Bears' Picnic... Serial 13:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You mean Meghan Trainor and Taylor Swift? Also is that a joke or a real thing? Because if it's the latter all I can say is OMG, I've had enough fan feuds on the ANs to last me a lifetime already; generally IIRC relating to female rappers. Also could fans at least restrict their feuds to people who probably really don't like each other? I mean Taylor Swift vs Ye I could understand; but Taylor vs Trainor seems silly since no matter they might be sort of competing as musicians for fans, awards, etc, they don't seem to have any major disagreement. Not even kayfabe. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse block. I have been somewhat involved with this issue, as I declined an unblock request yesterday and have also been giving some of my thoughts at User talk:MaranoFan. It's always tricky when we run into conduct issues with such a prolific editor, who produces high volumes of high-quality work on a regular basis. But that isn't and never has been a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to such conduct issues. Clearly for whatever reason there has been a lot of bad blood between MF and editor Heartfox in recent months, and the impending IBAN between the two is long overdue. Heartfox's own conduct hasn't been entierly exemplary, but that's not what we're here to discuss. For MaranoFan specifically, it was clear from the diffs presented, such as [68], that MaranoFan had deeply personalised their feud with Heartfox, and taken to casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding them and generally treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. And this is something they had specifically been blocked for in the past. Even if it was five years ago, I'd expect them to have desisted entirely from such behaviour. Anyway, the blocking admin was clear from the outset that this block was "indefinite but not infinite", with a general view that MF would come back with a strong pledge not to engage in battleground behaviour going forward and then be unblocked. So the block was fine, and entirely in keeping with the goal of preventing further disruption to the project and to other editors and I endorse it as it stands. As for where we go from here, yesterday I think we were making good progress towards a state where we could trust the editor to get back to the coalface, but today MF has returned with a fresh set of personal attacks and aspersions, this time against the blocking admin, with completely spurious claims that the block was influenced by some oppose vote MF made on a Taylor Swift FAC at some point in the past. In a sense, this simply reinforces the original point, that MF is treating WP as a battleground. As things stand, I'd now need to see a much more solid and introspective look at themselves with a solid strategy for avoiding this kind of thing in future, before I'd consider an unblock, because currently I don't think they entirely get why they were blocked and are instead doubling down on the same behaviours. Very disappointing indeed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• (Blocking admin comment) I've given my reasons for my actions on MF's talk page and tried to help MF understand. I've butted out to let uninvolved editors offer advice, and I've answered questions MF has had. I would encourage anyone reviewing this block to read that page. I don't want to see a productive contributor blocked and I've said from the outset that I intended it to be indefinite as in "temporary but no fixed duration", not as in "forever". It pains me to take an action like this, but that speaks to the necessity. The encyclopaedia cannot function if an editor is going to take a spat with another editor from one venue to another to another to another. And our internal processes cannot function if editors are allowed to accuse their participants of having nefarious motives for voting the way do, and then rubbish the results of that process in order to get an article through another process. Any one of those behaviours would be worthy of a short block, but taken together I felt that an indef was necessary to prevent further disruption until MF realises just how disruptive his conduct has become and changes because he wants to come back to being a productive member of the community, not just because he wants to be unblocked. I thought we were making progress last night so this screed from this morning—among other things accusing me of bias because I like Taylor Swift and again suggesting that he didn't see a problem with his conduct—is very disappointing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-musically-induced comment) Endorse block. I highlighted an example of where similar behavior was seen at FAC, also with Heartfox, and I assumed that was it, as FAC can be a tetchy minefield to say the least—lots of work and sweat goes into writing your best work then someone comes along and seemingly tears it apart—and I very much respect that. But I assumed it was a one-off sounding in a powder keg, not a MO. Since it seems far more common than I thought, I think HJM is to be thanked for the brave decision to uphold policy when others... would not have, perhaps, knowing the amount of grief that would come their way. And indeed, has. As noted in the original block, it is indefinatum super infinitum, and presents an opportunity for MF to refocus on what's important to them on-Wiki (and off, of course!): presenting quality material at FAC, and the concomitant Triumph that follows, or arguing with one's peers. The problem with the latter is that it's so often a case of the unstoppable object meeting an immovable post. Serial 10:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse indef I recall indef blocking Winkelvi (talk · contribs) after a interaction-ban based content dispute with MaranoFan, and thinking MaranoFan was sailing pretty close to sanctions themselves. Spin forward five years, and I find MaranoFan still getting into scrapes and disputes with people. I think they're out of rope. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse block Indefinite doesn't mean infinite. The fact MF still doesn't see his behavior as anything wrong, plus personal attacks on an admin choice of music, is enough for me to say that MF still doesn't understand why they are blocked. (Though HJM a Swiftie? Never saw that coming). RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse indef MaranoFan's behaviour was and has been well over the line enough to warrant a block. Probably in part because they're also a good content contributor, admins have been reluctant to take action, but it's probably a good thing that HJ Mitchell did. Also as I mentioned above while we generally tolerate some blowing of steam from editors who've just been blocked, casting aspersions about an admin who blocked you in part because of your tendency to cast aspersions definitely isn't a way to show the block was unwarranted. As I also said, this is just such a bizarre aspersion anyway. Even with that indefinite doesn't have to mean infinite, but MaranoFan does need to understand that some of their behaviour is over the line and needs to change which they don't seem to yet. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse (involved insofar as I supported the IBAN at ANI, and only saw this discussion due to MF's ping). HJ Mitchell's block seems to be a perfectly reasonable use of admin discretion. HJM being a fan of Taylor Swift obviously doesn't make him involved with respect to MaranoFan, but MaranoFan extending their aspersions about percieved opponents at FAC attempting to get them blocked to HJM does suggest to me that maybe a block was in fact needed. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Having just seen MaranoFan's latest unblock request it looks as though they have done some self-reflection and I would hope, while endorsing HJM's block, that they could be unblocked sooner rather than later. There seems to me clear consensus in the ANI thread for an IBAN and I hope that should be sufficient to solve the problem going forward. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Bad block - (Non-administrator comment), in my view, an indefinite block was overly zealous, when there was no consensus for it in the ANI thread. The I-ban proposal, with the three bullet points, was addressing the animosity between these two editors. Quite frankly, an I-ban should have been enacted by an admin four months ago when there was a clear consensus for it. Let's hope the current I-ban proposal doesn't get archived with no action taken. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment (edit conflict) I was pinged here on MF's talk page probably because I commented there. I think HJMitchell's block have been a bit premature but they explained their motivation, and they also stated that the block is not permanent. I think it is ok that Softlavender has asked others to review the indef. The Taylor Swift angle made me chuckle. I will go on record saying I like most of Taylor's music, but I will stop short of calling myself a Swiftie. On balance I would hope that an uninvolved administrator will review the unblock request when they are confident that MF is ready to participate. MF contributes positively to the project and to DYK the majority of time. Lightburst (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - being unexpectedly indefinitely blocked would be a rude shock for many editors including myself. I hope people can understand that editors might not react very well to that. There's always a chance that indefinite ends up being infinite. MF clearly made comments to HJM in anger, but since then, at User talk:MaranoFan#Final unblock request, has apologised both to HJM and for MF's comment at DYK talk. I hope that we can move on to considering this apology. starship.paint (RUN) 14:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• I agree that appears to have MaranoFan cooled down, so I would heartily recommend him to the WP:SO, since this block has attained near universal support. Serial 15:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse block as wholly within admin discretion. I think it's grasping at straws to insinuate there was some sort of resentment on HJ Mitchell's behalf that led him to block unnecessarily based on a noted appreciation of Taylor Swift. Softlavender, you've got the wrong end of the stick here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse block. HJ Mitchell's block was entirely within admin discretion, and I think it was justfied in this case. His "not infinite, just until we're sure it's no longer needed" approach was, I think, just right. And his attempts to explain and to help MaranoFan are a fine example of how to approach a situation like this. I think Harry's reasons for the block have been confirmed by MaranoFan's continuing to make personal attacks - I really wish more blocked users would take a few days to think about things like this, instead of immediately coming out fighting. Going off half-cocked in anger, then having to apologise, and then having people wondering about the user's bad temper... it really doesn't paint a good picture of how future interactions might go. I'd love to see the block lifted, but I think we need to see a convincing case made for it first. (Disclaimer: Another ageing Swiftie here, though I really don't know what that's got to do with anything). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Endorse block as well within administrator discretion. If MaranoFan wants to return to editing, they must provide rock solid assurances that there will be no more feuding or bickering of any kind. As for Taylor Swift, hard rock is my preferred musical style, but I am impressed by her career and her determination to be in control of her own work. Plus, she's beautiful. Cullen328 (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I do want to say that their latest unblock request is a big step in the right direction. Cullen328 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse block I haven't read enough of the relevant threads to know if I would have made the same block, but I've read enough to know it was well within discretion. Personal involvement because of musical taste? Really? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:59, 6 October 2023 (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.

Bkbray unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Bkbray (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to a one-account restriction. This restriction may be appealed after 6 months have elapsed. For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

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

that rfc...

has been closed with (kinda) consensus to draftify. so, erm, when are we doing it? ltbdl (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The consensus was an approval, not a mandate. I believe details are still being worked out. Measure twice, cut once as the saying goes. Doing things as quickly as possible with no consideration for what you're doing or how you're doing is what caused the problem in the first place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

That is an excellent point, it was a sense of overwhelming urgency which got us into this mess so it should be calm and deliberate action which gets us out. WP:NODEADLINE etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Twelve fewer administrators

According to the newsletter above, we lost twelve administrators last month, including recently-active stalwarts like Nosebagbear (RIP), Hog Farm, Rschen7754 and TonyBallioni. I believe the last time there were so many desysoppings in one month, excluding times when the activity requirements changed, was October 2016. There were a range of reasons, and hopefully for at least one of them (Tamzin) it will only be a short leave of absence, but still, it's sad to see. – Joe (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey you still got me right? RIGHT? Seriously, it's a thankless task and I can understand why some admins want to turn in the mop at times. To those who did, thanks for the help and hopefully we will see you back again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

From my noobie perspective.

When you look at how much abuse admins get on a daily basis, along with the same old questions from new editors every single day, having to make difficult calls on behaviour (sometimes from long standing editors), having to be the one to keep your cool when someone questions every judgment you make and not to mention the (imho) frankly abusive mire at RFA, it is a wonder why any of you do it. Anyone who manages admin roles AND real life should be commended regardless of their length of service. Knitsey (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Not to say that the collective reason these admins left is specifically due to increasing toxicity at Wikipedia (in what volunteer environment should one be thankful to receive death threats, vandalism, and 100 abusive failed login attempts?), but it would be useful to know where some major problems originate and what possible ways we have to address them. It's unfortunate that anytime we try to fix the problem, the vastly diverse (and vocal) interpretations of how Wikipedia should operate results in nothing being done. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I thought I had read a few conversations about unbundled admin rights WaltClipper, I couldn't remember where I had seen them. Handy link, thank you.

I do think that there are pros and cons with some unbundled admin tools. I've thought on a few occasions that having specifically trained (sub? Not sure that's correct) admins just dealing with AIV and UAA would help but the amount of oversight that would need, it probably isn't practical. RFPP is another area that could alleviate admin pressure, again, oversight would probably create more work.

Admins, for the most part, seem to cope well with the pressures mentioned above but it would be really interesting to find out if there is an average 'shelf-life' for admins? Knitsey (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Leafing through them only two appear to have left for reasons other than inactivity or their personal lives. As for the other two CorbieVreccan was involved in a minor scandal and did the "quite before they fire you" thing (despite it being far from clear that they would have been desysopped) and Rschen7754 is a leader of the extremist wing of the roads wikiproject who left wiki en-mass in protest of our notability standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This comment is a perfect illustration why the administrators feel under constant attack, underappreciated, and lose motivation to do anything here. Ymblanter (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Ymblanter. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:55, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This statement is not appreciated. Seems like the last part potentially equates Wikipedia to a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The Night Watch (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

BATTLEGROUNDs have warring factions, not moderates and extremists within a given spectrum. What term would you use instead? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye, jesus man--kick a guy on his way out, why don't you. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Who is down here? Rschen7754 wasn't kicked out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

How about you stop blatantly violating WP:NPA, Horse Eye's Back? I'm surprised Doc didn't straight up block you for this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the personal feedback and will take it to heart, do you have any comment on my argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone exercising the right to fork (though I don't know the details and if it's a true fork as described by Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking); it is that same "extremism" that gave us the wonderful LibreOffice. I wish their roads project well and genuinely hope it prospers. - Aoidh (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody said there was something wrong with forking, I encouraged the fork and fully support it. Perhaps this is just political science terms being misunderstood but the forking element is extremist by definition, the moderates stay with the core project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not a protest to, when consistently told that the content you wish to write about is incompatible with a project, create a project that is compatible with the content you wish to write about. Finding a reasonable solution to the issue they faced regarding the content they wanted to write about is not a protest of anything. - Aoidh (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I am mistaken but a number do seem to be leaving wikipedia writ large in protest. When a group says that they are "seceding"[69] and throws around some pretty strong language on the matter I take them at their word. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've seen that TikTok and it came across to me as a video made from frustration, and is I think where I got the forking thought from, as an open source enthusiast I took seceding to mean forking. I don't see the extremist wing of the roads wikiproject who left wiki en-mass in protest of our notability standards but rather a group of editors who were constantly told that their efforts were incompatible with the project, and so found a solution by making a new project for their work. I think we're saying the same thing, just differently is all. - Aoidh (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken forking does not generally involve resignations etc. I don't see why they couldn't just fork roads and continue to edit other areas of wiki. IMO thats the difference between seceding and forking, one is a political act and one is a technical act. They aren't just forking, they're abandoning wikipedia[70]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I was told I wasn't allowed to edit in the only area I enjoyed editing, I don't think I'd continue editing either... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Who was told they weren't allowed to edit in the only area they enjoyed editing? I don't remember any topic bans but there may have been some. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You just said "I don't see why they couldn't just fork roads and continue to edit other areas of wiki" - i.e. "I don't see why they couldn't just [not edit roads - the one area they enjoy editing] and continue to edit other areas of wiki." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What part of forking means that they're no longer allowed to continue editing roads articles on wiki? We don't ban forkers from editing the forked topic, there's nothing wrong with it... It should be encouraged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

You told the road editors "I hope you continue editing the non-roads parts of wikipedia even if your roads related editing moves to a new project" - How is that supposed to be interpreted any other way? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Please explain this interpretation, I am baffled. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I don't know anymore - maybe I just misread or am just a poor word interpreter - but anyway this is going nowhere so stepping away. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize profusely to you and 707 if thats what it looks like I'm saying, that is not at all what I meant. What I meant was that their no longer editing roads articles on English wikipedia saddened me and even if they weren't going to edit those any longer in order to devote their efforts to the content in the fork I hoped that they would continue to edit in parts of the wiki which had not been forked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I see - I may just have been misreading what you said - apologies if that's the case. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

As far as Unless I'm mistaken forking does not generally involve resignations etc. I can't think of a successful forking situation where it didn't involve that. The examples that come to mind is OpenOffice.org developers leaving to create the Document Foundation and LibreOffice, XFree86 devs leaving to start X.Org Foundation, and Libera Chat (though that wasn't really a fork as such ,it had the same goals as forks generally do). - Aoidh (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

But they didn't fork wikipedia, they only forked part of it... Rschen7754 wasn't a roads admin, they were a wikipedia admin. Generally when a topic gets forked off of wiki (or to another part of wiki) those editors say active here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

A lot of forks are only partial (WebKit comes to mind), but editors come and go even without forks; an administrator leaving to pursue another interest, especially when they grow disillusioned or get burnout isn't unusual at all, and they may be back in some capacity later or they may not, but that's their prerogative. One last thought, sometimes forks (especially wiki forks) come full circle (like Wowpedia) so who knows what will happen down the road (no pun intended). - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thats a very good point, perhaps it is more natural that I thought and is not necessary indicative of protest. I suspect that at the end of the day most of the editors will find their way back here, the actual disagreements aren't at all as stark as the TikTok makes them seem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

What they said. Plus if you joined Wikipedia to write articles about goblins, but after years of doing that a bunch of people who never really got involved in little green creature topics but had Strong Feelings about notability as an abstract concept suddenly turned up to say hey, you know what, we actually don't want all these articles on goblins, wouldn't you consider leaving to start Goblinpædia? It's a rational, understandable decision that does not at all change the fact that this project has lost a prolific admin with eighteen years of experience. We really do suck at valuing people around here. You're only as good as your last mistake. – Joe (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

How would one have prevented that exactly? Making our notability standards and overall quality worse in order to retain people who demand it be as such? Silverseren^C 18:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Would not mercilessly attacking content creators and admins have made Wikipedia worse, though? (that's at least how they felt - and I've had poor experiences that feel like that as well) We should overall improve how we treat admins and content creators, in my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It would be helpful if all editors behavioured in a more civil manner to each other. I fear this discussion isn't going to help that cause. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think bringing up "must meet GNG" is "mercilessly attacking content creators". You do try and bring up the past situation of you arguing that GNG doesn't matter frequently, friend. It's not actually a good argument. Silverseren^C 19:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Its not simply saying "must meet GNG" but also rude remarks like that above by Horse eye's back and relentless attempts to delete articles and tighten further notability standards again and again and again which is what drives editors away. As for "mercilessly attacking," that was the exact words of what one road editor told me offline what they felt was happening to them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet that tightening in almost every case is just properly enforcing a requirement of having a single reference of significant coverage in an article, sometimes two. Because for the longest time we weren't enforcing referencing standards in all topic areas. That we've now moved as a community to do that enforcement of long-standing rules and requirements is not some onerous new strictness. Silverseren^C 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The encyclopaedia was always going to contract to a certain extent as the project matured and the community gained a clearer idea of what they wanted Wikipedia to be. But calling people who have worked hard on the articles that are now falling victim to that contraction "extremists", instead of working with them to preserve what we can, is not beneficial to the project's long-term health. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What gives you the impression that I haven't worked with them to preserve what we can? They're leaving because they refused to compromise with the community, not because the community didn't compromise with them (it did, see the Maps RfC for one such comprise). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering that there is no such requirement (see WP:NEXIST), you might be able to see why suddenly beginning to enforce it has alienated a lot of people? – Joe (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence of WP:NEXIST is the relevant part, Joe Roe, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. We're discussing cases where the notability was challenged, so requiring an exhibition of notable coverage was needed. When notability guidelines are updated to require at least one reference of proper coverage, that is done because the inherent claim to notability for that subject area has been challenged by the community at large. Just like the sourcing requirements that now exist more explicitly for all sports biographies. Silverseren^C 23:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That means you have to show sources to the person challenging, not put them in the article. As far as I know NSPORT is unique in requiring that. – Joe (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This is true, that being said it would be weird for that person to not put the sources in the article (either initially or after notability is challenged). I've actually never seen that happen, in my experience good faith editors always want the strongest sources to be used in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's driving me away. In one setting after another, I'm seeing a baffling combination of wiki-lawyering and simultaneously treating GNG as holier than policy. To me, there's no list of three or four bullet points that can sum up how to decide what goes in an encyclopedia that covers every sphere of human activity. General advice exists to be refined or overridden when more specific experience is available. But I'm burned out of arguing that the GNG is not in all times and circumstances the operating principle we should shape our thoughts around, so nowadays I only edit to fix things that are pretty obviously broken. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

In this case the dispute was not over GNG but a SNG (GEO). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You write that as if it is in any way a contradiction to what X said above. We are seeing a wave of people worshipping the holy writ of GNG as if it were given to us on stone tablets, and demanding that any variation in SNGs be ironed out, a wave of demands to eliminate unproblematic content because its existence conflicts with the holy writ of GNG, and a wave of content creators leaving the project and telling us on the way out that this issue is what is driving them from the project. And your response is to argue that no, it's not happening, because technically they were concerned about an SNG and not about its relation to GNG? Listen to yourself and consider whether the difference you are making is a positive one. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Would not mercilessly attacking content creators and admins have made Wikipedia worse, though? Nobody is mercilessly attacking content creators and admins. People are just saying "articles should demonstrate notability", which isn't exactly a high standard given that all we require is WP:GNG.

Yes, even this low standard will cause people to leave, but just as the exodus of people who wanted OR on Wikipedia made Wikipedia a better place, the exodus of people who want articles on non-notable topics will make Wikipedia a better place. BilledMammal (talk) 09:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course, there's more to it then just saying "articles should be notable" - harassment, stress from the same group of editors over and over again trying to delete your hard work, etc. - I'm largely in agreement with SounderBruce's comment below. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's important to distinguish between reviews of articles in a topic area and reviews of articles created by a single editor. The former may be stressful for those whose articles come up again and again, but it isn't harassment, and it is necessary - we have a responsibility to curate the encyclopedia and that does mean that these topic area reviews must take place and editors shouldn't be criticized for doing them.

The latter is more complicated; it is permitted by our policies ("correcting related problems on multiple articles"), but it is also more stressful for the editor whose articles are being reviewed and can feel like harassment. However, in some cases it is necessary; when an editor has engaged in mass creation, and their mass creations are problematic, the only practical way to address them is by reviewing their creations together - LUGSTUBS and LUGSTUBS2 are examples of this.

I would also note that it's not only editors who hold your position who have felt harassed over this. I, for example, have been subject to hounding by some who disagree with my position on notability. BilledMammal (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless those articles about Goblins don't meet our notability standards (including the specific Goblin ones endorsed by the WikiGoblin community) nothing is going to happen to them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Continued harassment of several editors in good standing who merely have some disagreements on notability is definitely what drives people away from this project. The fatigue that sets in from putting out the fires (drive-by taggings, AfDs, and endless discussions) prevents us from doing what we do best: create content and manage it more effectively. The cherry on top is labeling people as extremists for just wanting some peace of mind and complying with the wishes of the deletionist bloc here. This is how communities die. SounderBruce 19:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no deletionist block here, this was an argument between people who wanted stand alone articles for all state highways (those who rejected WP:GEOROADS, specifically the word "typically") and people who thought that some state highways were better covered on other pages (those who supported WP:GEOROADS). Its two different approaches to inclusionism (even if the deflationists did pile onto one side). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

User edits, and especially user content edits, are as high as they have ever been[71], total page views have been solid since 2016[72]. Wikipedia is not a dieing community. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've added section headers for this conversation, which has diverged from the OP, and I'd like to strongly condemn Horse Eye's Back's language. Calling regular editors "extremist" is harassment and evokes the worst in global politics. And this isn't even the first time Horse Eye's Back has used hostile language when referring to editors he comes into conflict with. See, for example, here, here, and [73] for a recent smattering, plus this block in 2020. Horse, what is it going to take for you to lighten up? As I've said to you before: not being a jerk is criminally easy. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a very neutral subsection title, if you read the discussion you will find that what I mean by "extremist" is probably not all that different from what you mean by whatever word you choose, what do you call the group in a system who rejects the moderate/consensus position and secedes? I didn't mean anything other than the purely descriptive, in political science its not a pejorative term any more than moderate is. I would also ask you to look into the context of a block before bringing it up, if you had I don't think you would. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I've boldly removed that header. As I said above all I feel all editors could do with being more civil with each other. I don't think HEBs comment was very helpful, and I don't think that header was either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Admin loss discussion

Some statistics: not a single month this year have we had a net gain of administrators, and so far all but one have had a net decrease, some large - per the admin's newsletter: January: +3, -11, net -8; February: +1, -5, net -4; March: +1, -2, net -1; April: +1, -1, net 0 (only month without negative net); May: +1, -4, net -3; June: +1, -3, net -2; July: +1, -8, net -7; August: +1, -4, net -3; September: +2, -4, net -2; October: +1, -12, net -11; Overall: +13, -53, net -40. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Those are worrying numbers. Knitsey (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, that has been the norm for some time. There were 2004 admins appointed between 2002 and 2011, compared to 220 since 2012. We're still slowly working through a long tail of inactive admins from that early boom, and until that's done with we can't realistically expect net gains. – Joe (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

One could say that we should already count all of the inactive admins as negatives anyways, since they aren't actually acting as admins and haven't been for years in most cases. Counting them as part of the administrator group right now is just pretending there's more admins than there are.

At the same time, their inactivity despite the rest of the admin areas working fine means they weren't needed in the admin numbers in the first place. So that's the other angle to things. Lower admin numbers doesn't mean anything if they weren't doing admin actions in the first place. Them just existing as admins isn't beneficial to the wiki as a while. Silverseren^C 19:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing. If we lose inactive Admins it’s not a bad thing, and the two who resigned during a dispute over their use of the tools weren’t very active. Doug Weller talk 19:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's basically a situation of if we have 100 admins, but only 10 are doing admin work, then we only have 10 admins. And removing those 90 others is not actually affecting our available admins in any real way, other than numerically. Silverseren^C 19:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

While true, we're still not replacing the ones who become inactive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As an aside, I've really never understood people who ask to be desysopped and then stick around anyway, even in reduced capacity. There's no actual rule that you have to "act as an administrator" every day, and even at 2% normal editing rate the extra buttons can really come in handy. I've had months where I maybe made 5-10 edits, but even then I could just block a spammer instead of going through the rigmarole of getting someone else to do what I could have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point, there's nothing in the admin policy which dictates that. Apart from the possibility that maybe they want a period of time where they don't feel obligated to do admin activities, the only thing I can figure is that some admins want to feel like they have control over their own destiny. Thus if they foresee inactivity, even for a brief period of time, they would much prefer hang up the tools on their own terms rather than have them automatically removed by a bot. I'm trying to think of the instances in which an admin asked for the tools back after having them taken away mechanically, and the discussions I do recall on WP:BN weren't very flattering. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The general issue there is becoming out of touch... Tools, policy, and guideline are all constantly changing and we've generally treated being active with staying current on changes. Better I think would be a feature that let someone pause being an admin rather than the binary of mop/no mop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, the main reason I resigned adminship a few weeks ago is the challenge of complying with WP:ADMINACCT while distracted by pressing RL concerns. Right now, if someone asks me why I deleted some page a year ago, and I don't answer, that's fine. But if I'm an admin and someone asks me that same question and I don't answer, maybe someone drags me to AN or ArbCom. And maybe that goes nowhere, but that's still more stress on my plate, to defend some past decision at a time when I have more important things to do.

I'm not saying any of that is a problem, FWIW. ADMINACCT is one of our most important policies. But the logical consequence of its existence is that if someone doesn't have the time to respond to ADMINACCT inquiries, they shouldn't be an admin. There's also the omnipresent stressor of people saying "As an admin you should know better than to do XYZ!" any time you do something that they personally disapprove of. That is a problem, but probably not a fixable one, since we can't make space for legit ADMINCOND complaints without also humoring a lot of bullshit ones.

P.S. @Joe Roe and Vanamonde93: Real life is mostly okay at this point. Going to take a bit more time to work on some content, but should be back to adminship soon.  Kinehore. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of it that way. When I've been mostly inactive editing I would still usually end up at Wikipedia at least once a day (whether consciously or just from looking something up), so I never fell too out of touch. And I trusted myself to do only the most obvious admin actions if I was going to do any at all, which is easy for me since at UAA there are enough obvious things that it wouldn't mean much if I blocked and then didn't edit again for days. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, there's a difference between how many edits someone makes and how available they are. I've had times when I was only editing once a day or so, but was still able to make the time to respond if someone made an ADMINACCT inquiry. I suppose I could have done here what I did in a situation a few months ago where I felt psychologically unable to act as an admin, which was log out of my admin account and say any admin could revert any action of mine in the meantime. I think the difference is that this was an external stressor I wanted to give my (near-)undivided attention to, whereas last time I just needed to get my head screwed on straight. So, yeah, there's gradations of inactivity, and sometimes more decisively separating oneself from the tools makes more sense. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We're still slowly working through a long tail of inactive admins from that early boom, and until that's done with we can't realistically expect net gains To me, that assumes you're always going to have a net loss, forever, which still hurts us in the long-term. Though I'd be interested to see what the correlation is between the dates of loss versus the dates that said admins were appointed. I'm not entirely certain that all of these net losses are attributable just to a baby-boom type of effect. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't crunched the numbers, but my impression looking through Wikipedia:Former administrators/chronological is that the vast majority of desysops in any given month are for inactivity (this month was unusual), and the majority of those are of admins that passed RfA before 2012 (when the number of successful RfAs per year stabilised at current levels). But it's not forever. Eventually we will get through that huge backlog, and at that point the net gain/loss will be a meaningful indicator of growth/reduction in the number of available admins. Until then, as I said, I don't think it's the right metric to look at. The discrepancy between RfA rates in the project's early days and now is just too enormous. – Joe (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Numbers mean nothng. What matters is how much the admins that we have are supporting the community. Most are, but some are not, so it's no problem if the latter go. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Do we actually have statistics of the dynamics of (i) total admin actions; (ii) admin actions per say active admin somewhere? Of course admins who lose the tools because of the inactivity are inactive, but at some point before they from active become inactive, and this is not reflected in these statistics. Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The reality is that most admins do very little admin work. Here are the adminstats for the past 3 months. This table doesn't include items such as closing discussions or Main page tasks, but I still think it provides good insight into the current situation. We've got maybe 100 admins doing 95% of the work. -FASTILY 20:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I'm apparently 38th most active, despite not even having been an admin for the entire period. And I'm 24th-most-active since I became an admin. Are there really only 20 people (and 3 both) doing more than what I had though was a relatively paltry share of the work? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You're doing great work PPP. There are many reasons the stats aren't perfect, but I also see you being very involved in tasks that the stats don't account for, like closing discussions (that don't end in a deletion). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The fact that I'm 21st most active on that list (18th if you ignore the bots) is somewhat worrying considering that I'm only sporadically active because of work and (when not at work) I spent much of August on holiday! Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's primarily because you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations, which amounted to almost a thousand deletions. But I guess it's bad in a different way that one mass action gets you so high on the most-active list. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

In a way, thank goodness for that. I am always quite inactive over the summer and that made me think "really?!" Black Kite (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I'm 27th on the list after just over a week of adminship. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• The desysopped admins had almost 2000 actions between them in the last three months. Those are 2000 actions someone else now has to do (though I remain hopeful that Tamzin will return soon). Even marginally active admins are doing things that other admins don't need to do. We have a considerable corps of editors who both carp at the admin backlogs at SPI or CCI, but then habitually oppose RFA candidates over peccadillos, and scream blue murder about any admin behavior that falls short of perfection. Small wonder that qualified RFA candidates routinely decline nominations, and that established admins experience burnout. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think another interesting (and not great) statistic is that at the start of 2023 there were 495 "active" admins ("active" here is just a low bar of >30 edits in the past 2 months) which has now dipped to 453 (-42). VickKiang (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• A concerning thing here is that despite RFA being a dramatically more civil place than it was a few years ago, and most nominations very easily pass, a lot of editors are now unwilling to nominate to become an admin. It would be good to get back to something resembling the old mindset that being an admin isn't a big deal. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know how much more civil it really is. This year, the community successfully piled on MB hard enough to convince him to leave for good. Hope everyone who took part is happy about themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that 68% support is really piling on. The outcome was unfortunate, but part of standing at RFA is that you have to accept that some editors may not trust your judgement. Also, maybe attacking "everyone who took part" is part of the problem? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  The last day of that RfA was an exercise in watching people twist a knife, and from a lot of the same people who I've seen write jeremiads about the state of RfA in other places. I'm sure you would agree, admins don't exactly have access to the nuclear football. On a better note, the latest RfA went through about as well as anyone (especially a conominator!) could've hoped for, so perhaps there's some hope. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that RfA was a disgrace. Whilst there were a number of good faith opposes, a significant amount were from people with an axe to grind relating to deletionism/inclusionism, their fellow travellers and socks. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  SFR, your own RFA is a perfect example of how our standards about casting aspersions get tossed out the window when experienced editors are commenting on admin candidates...a decent number of your opposers stuck to rational and civil comments, but just as many did not. And I don't think we should hesitate to call them on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's really more that the higher level the discussion the less those standards are enforced. It just so happens that RFA is almost the highest tier of discussion we hold. It's quite a conundrum, because the more attention is on a discussion the less likely anyone is to step in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I wish admins were more willing to give civility warnings, especially to other admins and editors they otherwise respect. I can't help feeling that warnings from editors who you don't feel are 'out to get' you, (they aren't out to get you, but a warning from someone you are actively disagreeing with doesn't hit the same) would genuinely help. I know I wouldn't be immune to such a warning, I've posted comments I don't believe have helped the discussion, (we are all human, well apart from SFR who is obviously a ChatGPT4 bot) and I feel there are others here who are the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested don't stop with admins. One of the best things you can do for a friend is to tell them that they're wrong. A friend or a neutral third party stepping in before things escalate can save a whole lot of hassle down the line. It's something we should encourage more of as it would result in less traffic to this noticeboard! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested If I can have a dollar every time I hand out civility warnings, I probably don't need my daytime job. No one is willing to hand them out precisely because the moment I start doing it, I will stick out like a sore thumb. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I don't disagree with this, I just wish we'd recognize that as a problem with our culture here, rather than as an unchangeable aspect. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

The process for becoming an administrator probably discourages most good applicants. Who wants to defend themselves to a hundred or so random editors? And there's no problem with idiots who have kept their edits to wikignoming from qualifying. One editor became an administrator to help colleagues write about Eastern Europe in a biased way. That got to ARBCOM twice, most recently about Poland and the Holocaust. Another editor became an administrator and created hundreds of redirects with the word "boobies" in them. Both of course were desysoped.

We might consider automatic appointments, as is already done for reviewers and rollbackers. If someome has extensive experience and hasn't been blocked recently, they probably are more capable than most recent editors who want to be administrators. Of course, being an administrator does not mean they would all carry out those tasks.

TFD (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The big hangup with that is arbitration enforcement. There is a lot of trust required to hand someone that mop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

One option would be to create two tiers of adminship; appointed and acclaimed. The former would not be permitted to sit at AE or enforce contentious topic restrictions, while the latter would be.

Further restrictions on what appointed admins could do would also be appropriate; to suggest just two, perhaps they would not be permitted to reverse blocks or bans imposed by an acclaimed admin, and perhaps they would not be permitted to block any editor who is extended-confirmed.

It may also serve to smooth the path to "full" adminship; if an editor has performed well as an appointed admin for a year there would hopefully be less opposition to making them a full admin. BilledMammal (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

An alternative would be requiring all major admin actions to have two admin endorsements, a Robert's Rules first and second so to speak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think adding a layer of bureaucracy is the right path. I originaly proposed this as a joke, but I do think there is some merit to the idea that we simply do away with RFA and let ArbCom appoint admins through the same process used to appoint functionaries. There is still public input, SNOW/NOTNOW cases should go down to around 0% due to pre-vetting of candidates, and the process would just be a little less painful for the nominee. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it a new layer? We already have a similar system whereby other admins tacitly endorse such actions by no reverting them. On RFA I actually have great faith in the future of RFA, I think we hit a nadir a bit there as a result of an oversupply of mixed quality admins in the early days... For a while people weren't willing to consider candidates unless they were as good as the best admins. As the admin supply naturally contracts we will again have a demand signal for new admins who are able and willing to do solid (but not yet necessarily the same quality as a decades old top tier admin) work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

ARBCOM could streamline their case load requests by having only three arbitrators sit on each case unless there was any particular reason to have them all. TFD (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

AE doesn't need special requirements. Administrators should know the rules and whether they have the temperament to sit there. And of course it's not just one administrator making the decision and arbitrators can ban officious administrators from participating. TFD (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbs generally have very little to do with AE. The committee relies on admins to handle that aspect. The committee has only heard six full cases so far this year, the majority of our workload these days is all the other stuff, a constant barrage of ban appeals, requests to investigate someone or other, gratuitous verbal abuse, etc. We have discussed how to mitigate some of that workload but haven't really gotten anywhere with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Changes to RfA

I've previously had the view that RfA could be made more amenable by dropping the 'crat threshold to 50% and the uncontroversial threshold to 66%. In other words, if a supermajority of editors support you, you're in, if a majority of editors support you, the crats will determine whether you can get in. Then, you ban all replies to !votes. If you want to badger an oppose or think a support is fawning rubbish, create your own section and write a proper rebuke to it. With those two changes, MB might have passed adminship and the atmosphere would have been a bit nicer.

I've never formally proposed this as I don't know how to get an RfC successfully passed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

If we remove the "discussion" element from the voting section of RfA, why not go the whole mile and ban any comments longer than "support" or "oppose"? Any longer comments could go to the perfectly functional talk page. —Kusma (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

RfAs in the discretionary range

If you look at the when the discretionary range was last widened (see graph right), it barely changed crat behaviour. After the change, only 2 out of 12 (16%) RfAs in the extended range (plus, memorably, one below it) were successful, compared to 4 out of 6 (67%) in the old range. Over all post-2012 RfAs, if you simply said that all candidates with more than 70% pass and all candidates with 70% or less fail, the result would be the same as what the crats decided 95.7% of the time. This suggests to me that we've fine-tuned the percentage thresholds to the point that having a crat assess consensus is redundant.

Banning replies sounds like a great idea. If I remember rightly, TonyBallioni's position on this was that since RfA in practice is an election (the non-functioning discretionary range is evidence of this), it'd be better to organise it as one. In a election, even an open ballot, it's generally not acceptable for a crowd of people to yell at you about your vote afterwards. I think "open ballot with rationales" is a perfectly reasonable model to adopt. – Joe (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Allowing rationales means you are allowed to campaign for your position, right inside the ballot box. A terrible idea not in use in any democracy, and mitigated only slightly by the right to reply. Replies are a necessary consequence of allowing rationales. —Kusma (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It's widely used in many contexts. The US Supreme Court, for example, or many public companies. I'm not sure what you mean by right of reply here. Usually it means the right of the subject of public criticism to reply to it. That might be a sensible exception to Ritchie's idea—the candidate themselves is allowed to reply—but there's already a strong taboo about candidates participating in their own RfA at all, so it's not really here or there. If you mean that everybody should have the right to reply to everybody's votes, I think that's not at all common outside Wikipedia and, to borrow your phrase, a terrible idea. – Joe (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Replying to votes is stupid (there is no point replying to "support" or "oppose"). Replying to comments is a normal part of our discussion culture. I think RfA should be a vote (consensus discussion making is not well suited to binary outcomes) but if "RfA is not a vote" then it should be a proper discussion. I wish that candidates would participate in the discussion more. —Kusma (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, if there are no rationales, only votes, the candidate does not get any feedback. Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

On a different point, I would be happy to see the discretionary range and bureaucrat chats abolished, I think they do more harm than good. —Kusma (talk) 12:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the percentages for crat involvement/absolute passing etc—too complicated for me–but removing the right to reply is a genuinely radical suggestion with many benefits. It would mean, of course, that effectively anyone could speak their minds without any fear of comeback–subject to the usual restrictions which can be enforced as ordinary admin actions (which I don't think, in any case, we see much of: badgering is mostly based on the quality or perceived validity of the !votes, rather than outright personal attacks) and talk page P&G—but that's what 'crat clerking is for. Indeed, it might induce more robust clerking where it's needed. It wouldn't stop RfA being any more or less of a discussion than it is (except by forcing discussion to occur in the section called, err, discussion). And the atmosphere would be lightened by editors not having to look at wha6t they don't want to see (again, by not scrolling done to the discussion if they feel it's unnecessary). This is a great idea all round Ritchie333 (or as one might say, "Nice one, geezer") Serial 11:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually think more voting and less discussion would make RfA even worse, or at least result in fewer successful RfAs. I'd prefer a model more like an RfC where people can raise concerns and other editors can discuss them and hopefully reach a conclusion about whether they're important or disqualifying. Leaving rationales unchallenged in a straight election just encourages bogus rationales (on both sides). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

With Ritchie's suggestion it's still possible to comment on other votes, you just have to do it alongside your own vote, in the general comments section, or on the talk page. It's functionally identical to the "own section only" rule used in arbitration cases, which I think has proven that it can lower the temperature by discouraging back-and-forths and making people more aware of how much text they're dropping on the overall discussion. – Joe (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to see the discussion separated from the voting. You can discuss the pros and cons of the candidate, and if you don't have anything to add to the discussion, you just vote and don't add further heat. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• I compiled my own statistics after the 2015 RfA reform discussions and updated again for 2020, and found that after those discussions and changes to the process, the only meaningful difference was that fewer people ran who were clearly not ready. None of the changes attracted more quality candidates nor promoted more admins, and the total number of admins has continued to decline. Joe's stats show much the same thing. My conclusion now is that RfA is not the problem. It's problematic certainly, and continuing to talk about improvements is certainly worthwhile, but the real underlying problem with declining numbers is that suitable prospective candidates don't want to be admins. Coming up on 7 years since my own RfA I have to say I can't blame established content creators for not wanting to pivot into tedious administrative work which at its best goes entirely unnoticed, but at its worst easily costs you your permissions and your reputation. If we want to fix the declining admin numbers then we need to be talking about why people don't want to be one, and find solutions to that problem. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I struggle to see the relationship between the conclusion ("RfA is not the problem") and the evidence here. --JBL (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I've always found it a little weird how we discuss and vote at the same time (almost always voting *before* joining the discussion), what if the vote followed the discussion? So we'd have a week of just discussions and questions for the candidate and then we would all vote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• I like the idea of lowering the threshold but I don't like the idea of less discussion. I don't think the problem with RFA is the amount of discussion, but the nature of it. We could also clarify a guideline on which rationales to avoid at RFA (e.g., it used to be common to say "not enough edits" and I think that's less common nowadays) Andre🚐 18:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

User seems to be making very odd vandalism or is just very confused

Not sure if this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue or mistakes or some very bizarre niche vandalism, but WildTiger08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be having a hard time here. I think an admin intervening to steer him toward constructive editing may be useful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Given their filter log hits and response to you on their talk page, I'm leaning more toward vandalism. Blocked. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denialism and links to pro-Nazi blogspot restored in article

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.

---

On Latvian Wikipedia I made good minor edits to the Herbert Cukurs article, removing the claim that his guilt was not proven because there are so many witnessess (more than the simple 4 witnesses rule) but even more importantly, removing a link to the "herbertscukurs.blogspot.com" Nazi blogspot that claims that the allegations of war crimes against him are a Jewish conspiracy. @Egilus: reverted me and called me a vandal. I pointed out that blogspot is a self-published source and they still restored the link immediately but never even tried to argue or dispute that blogspot was not a self-published source. And then they protected the page so that nobody else can remove the Nazi blogspot link. Apparently they think defaming Jews is more important than following the basic Wikipedia rule about using no self-published sources. Please be harsh with them to set an example for other users who link to pro-Nazi blogspots in Wikipedia.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

KazyKazyKazakhstan, we have zero control or influence on the Latvian Wikipedia. You will need to take up the matter there. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But that's the fox guarding the henhouse there! This is a big editor on Latvian Wikipedia, other editors on Latvian Wikipedia are on their side. Somebody who isn't in the Herbert Cukurs war crime fan club needs to set the record straight and bring the hammer down on these Nazi defenders. Do you think that my removal of the blogspot link was vandalism? If so, does that mean I am free to add blogspot links in other Wikipedia articles? --KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism was your unexplained repeated removing of information that Cukurs never was found guilty in the court. -- Egilus (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This blogspot article is dedicated to Cukurs' flights before 2WW and no have any relation to denial of Holocaust. -- Egilus (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How is (translated) "accusations were created of his participation in crimes against Jews" not Holocaust denialism? Accusing Jews of making false accusations against Cukurs is not OK. And even then, blogspot is still not a permitted source! And this article on the site claims Cukurs protected Jews which is utterly absurd! He is the butcher of Riga! Saying "This unit fought bravely against the communists" is a very off way of saying "mercilessly slaughtered Jewish woman and children" (but remember, these people regularly use "communist" as a euphamism for "Jew"). Somebody please bring a hammer down on this anti-semetic propaganda.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You said the accusations against him were never proven. But there are enough witnessess (much more than 4) for it to be safe to say these are more than just allegations. Saying there is no proof is implying that there are not witnesses against him. This is not a BLP. Should we also say that accusations og genocide against Hitler are not proven because he didn't stand trial too?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Egilus: You have been warned about why blogspot is a forbidden source but you still haven't backed down. I strongly encourage you to remove the link to the Cukurs blogspot ASAP and issue a public apology to Jewish editors of Wikipedia for your belligerent pushing of Holocaust denialism (and glorification of Holocaust perpetrators).--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2023 (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.

Road to Utopia

In a somewhat clumsy moment I renamed Road to Utopia (album) to believing it to be the only article with that tile, deleting the article on the film at Road to Utopia which I had previously seen as a redirect. I immediately released my mistake. But then somehow compounded the error by renaming Road to Utopia as Road to Utopia (album) and restoring the article Road to Utopia, but all I restored appears to have been the redirect I originally saw. I can still see that there are 200 deleted film article edits, but am now unable to view them or restore the film article. Help! SilkTork (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@SilkTork: check again now. I think you actually undeleted everything correctly, I just edited Road to Utopia back to its previous revision. Jenks24 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I was misreading/misunderstanding what I was seeing. SilkTork (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

And this - The Road to Utopia - is where I am coming from, and what I thought I was fixing. SilkTork (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

There may exist sufficient pagespace to deserve a disambiguation page: Road to Utopia (album), Road to Utopia, Selections from Road to Utopia and Dystopia: Road to Utopia. BusterD (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Boldly done. BusterD (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Permanent IPs range block

Block range needed (for IPs and for all the connected accounts to those IPs). I don't where this situation has to be filed here or at the sockpuppet investigation page, for now I have also put it there. If I have to delete it from here or there please tell me.

In theory we have already permanently blocked this Spanish nationalist and suprematist and racist and vandal and disruptor by the name of User:Venezia Friulano (originally User:JamesOredan, also known via at least 30 socks, "at least" because i suspect about another 5/6 users but I have not had them blocked yet; see the sock investigation page of James Oredan to realize the scale of his network of socks). In practice, he's continuing to poison wikipedia and push his agenda via other IPs and accounts. This has been going on for YEARS and has created immense damages to the content of wikipedia via his infinite list of socks, not to mention the ethnic-based insults he made to users of other ethnicities (especially towards muslims, portuguese, italians).

The cherry on top is that he has now messaged me to insult me and add "I will always edit...your blocks and reverts are absolutely in vain...you can now block this account again, no problem" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1179240061 ) There is no way we can deal with such a bad agent other than range block to make sure the permanent block is more effective towards his IPs and his many accounts.

The IPs I am talking about are:

• 46.6.137.43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 2A02:2E02:D91:6A00:E519:ADE6:60E3:955D (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 37.29.246.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 46.222.104.6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 46.222.217.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• 2A02:2E02:D90:1F00:95F5:F8D3:3D51:50C8 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The first IP is the one who messaged me. The others have the same edits and specific agenda of that IP, of Venezia, of JamesOredan, and of his various socks. There are others just as obvious but these are the ones under my watch as of lately. Barjimoa (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP edits

This might be the wrong venue, but these[74] two[75] edits should probably be deleted. Thanks Nemov (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorted (but not by me). Primefac (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, taken care of (by me). RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Prem Rawat case

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Prem Rawat case is amended by striking the remedy designating Prem Rawat as a contentious topic (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat § Contentious topic designation). Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic designation remain in force and are governed by the contentious topics procedure.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding the Prem Rawat case

Needed locks on Israel-Palestine articles

I'd appreciate it if an admin would ECP all the unlocked pages at Template:Campaignbox October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict. At the moment, there are several non-EC users adding POV content to these articles. Thanks. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I went through and ECP-d everything that wasn't already. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you :-) Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Related to this, can we get some more admin eyes on the current events portal, Portal:Current events/2023 October 7 and forward? There's a fair bit of 1RR vios and non-EC pov pushing there as well, and I'm in no kind of mental condition to be doing anything about it (I'm still dealing with the unexpected death of a family member and hospitalization of another). —Cryptic 20:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Unusual method of silencing my opinions

Ever since I made a request at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 October 11, another user kept on deleting my request, claiming it an incorrect place. In one of my earlier contributions, I left the request at WP:PROPSPLIT before I realized the Note section. Now, it seems that the user is trying its best to kick me out of the discussion, despite convincing via my WP:ES the drawbacks of posting my thought elsewhere.197.1.169.133 (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
User involved: WikiCleanerMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
PS: The same user threatened me that I would be reported "accordingly".

• Comment This IP has decided not to listen and read accordingly. Clear case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Tfd is for merger or deletion requests. Template split is not a thing at Tfd. And not really a thing. What is a "template split"? There are only article splits. Already been told to propose on the template's talk page but this IP has refused to do so. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Also the nomination is a wrong one. The template was never tagged for discussion nor was formatted properly on the Tfd page to begin with. IP is making false accusations of trying to "kick" out of discussion. And no, there is no convincing argument through edit summaries of the IP. The "drawbacks" is the IP's problem not the general userbase of Wikipedia at Tfd. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been telling this user: none would seem to bother contesting a template with such title name, even if tagged for discussion. It means that if I had to post the nomination on the talk page, it would eventually be relisted, only to find out that the concluding decision be no consesus.197.1.169.133 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, there is a clear banner at Wikipedia:Proposed article splits#Notes which states what the page would not be used for. However, nothing displayed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion# What not to propose for discussion here speaks against template splits. Thus, whatever problem exists within the guidelines or the current situation, I can still assure that I have done nothing wrong obeying instructions.197.1.169.133 (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You haven't even defined a template split. Just because it doesn't say that on the main Tfd page doesn't mean there should be one. Starting a discussion on the talk page and whatever consensus it may lead to is part of the process. You can just ask for help on a relevant WikiProject talk page or Teahhouse. And when you were told it was not a thing you continued to revert to doing so by saying it would be seen better at Tfd and yet it was not a nomination that meets the merits of discussion at Tfd. Your edit summaries are not helping you. You're proving to be combative with summaries like "An act of waving the white flag." "Drops the white flag." and "Not even worth a junk." You're arguing from bad faith. Continuing to do so will not help you --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC).

WikiProjects? Would there be any single WikiProject displayed at talk:Microsoft Office that would look up for my thoughts? Even WP:MICROSOFT itself is considered likely inactive. WP:COMPUTER and WP:SOFTWARE would unlikely be there of aid as well. What kind of WikiProject does any user have to advice me to look up for if those 5 WikiProjects may not handle my request adequately?197.1.169.133 (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP is a long-term disruptive editor (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1127#Block evasion at Talk:Windows 10 version history) who hops around from IP to IP. I've blocked the latest two; other admins can consider whether a rangeblock of some sort might be helpful. That said, WikiCleanerMan, please be more careful about this sort of thing in the future: your reverts at the TfD were a crystal-clear WP:3RR violation, and I would have been well within my rights to block you too, regardless of who was right on the procedural question. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC), revised 06:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

FredP3737's 2021 copyright violations

Original heading including the external link behind it:

Copyvio: User repeatedly posts exerpts from Mosaic Records verbatim

Can't think of a better forum to report this, sorry. Mach61 (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Mach61, these edits have been made two years and 1 month ago. I'll have a closer look, but you may have to point out specific diffs with evidence of the misbehavior, and the user is probably long gone from Wikipedia. Revision deletion may be an option, Wikipedia:Copyright problems contains detailed advice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This (original) is a typical example; it seems all his contributions above ~500 bytes are copyvios Mach61 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Asking for revdel, not a ban tbc Mach61 (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I addressed the copyvio in:

• Flying Home
• Lionel Hampton

S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Mach61: WP:CCI extsts for this purpose. There are instructions on how to auto-prepare a report. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for directing me Mach61 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed motions on rescinding old topic-wide remedies

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a series of motions to rescind remedies (including contentious topic designations) that may no longer be necessary to prevent disruption. Community feedback is welcome at the motions page in the "community discussion" sections. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motions on rescinding old topic-wide remedies

Procedural dispute regarding a stub type deleted at CfD

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

---

Template:Rasborinae-stub is associated with a stub category deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_5#Category:Rasborinae_stubs, but user Liz (talk · contribs) keeps removing the CSD tag because they think the template should be deleted at TfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this was escalated to a high profile noticeboard for administrators. I was under the impression that the deletion of templates was discussed at WP:TFD, not WP:CFD. An explanation from an editor or admin who is familiar with template deletion discussions on my User talk page would have been more helpful that a full noticeboard discussion when there is a concern over 1 of the 515,777 admin actions I've taken. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This dispute needed input from a second admin. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Liz' position isn't unreasonable. In the past, stub templates were deleted at TFD, then the categories associated with them were speedied (there's a specific line about that in WP:G8), and deleting the category first seems backwards - category deletion tags are much, much less visible than template ones. That said, the instructions at TFD are to discuss these cases at CFD instead. I've deleted it. —Cryptic 22:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess this has been quickly resolved. Thank you, Cryptic, for your opinion and for handling this. To be honest, I'm not well versed on the TFD instructions because I rarely close TFD discussions and only delete templates that find their way, after TFD closures, to the CSD G8 category. You were correct, LaundryPizza03, this decision needed the input of administrator who knows their way around templates and TFD discussions. I just find being summoned to a noticeboard raises the hairs on the back of my neck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Please consider performing Rev Del on this edit

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

---

Because it is very offensive [76]

Thanks. 103.78.183.11 (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit falls under RD2. Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material - It says that the celebrity "belongs in jail". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.78.183.11 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2023 (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.

A dashboard tool to help admins

A view of the tool for admins

A while ago I wrote a tool so people can have configurable personal dashboards and I realized it can be useful to admins. I took a lot of inspirations from Template:Admin dashboard for English Wikipedia and wrote something you can use by adding "importScript("User:Ladsgroup/dashboard.js");" to your your common.js. Its default config is in User:Ladsgroup/defaultDashboardConfig.json but if you just make a dashboardConfig.json subpage it would override the default config. The json is rather understandable so it should be rather easy to personalize it. You can tell it to show you content of a given page, members of a category or anything else like that (if you want a a new type of dynamic list/content generation, I'd be happy to hear the idea, for example we could probably take output of some toolforge tools you use and show it there).

If you're a technical admin, the code is in gitlab and I would welcome MRs or improvements or more handlers. Also feel free to change the default as admins themselves know better what's going to be more useful to them.

I hope to eventually make it for more than admins too (already people in my wiki use it generally for content improvements, copy-editing, etc.) but I can't do it alone so anyone feeling like they want to help, I'd be glad. Ladsgroup^overleg 16:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Trying it out. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Mass editing

I have encountered mass editing of myriad articles by 2601:642:4001:4640:8000:188B:8A6F:874B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Most changes involve a reversal of the proper order of two words, often "not" and "to", or "never" and "to". I reverted them as quickly as I could. It is possible I may have missed some or gotten a few wrong in the process. I left two messages on their talk page and they have responded. We need more eyes on this as the English language does have variations. Since the changes were to long-standing existing content, I have assumed the status quo versions are correct. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I see, the charge of ‘reversal of the proper order of two words, often "not" and "to", or "never" and "to"’ seems false. Primal Groudon (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The long standing status quo version might be wrong. The changes seemed to make the content awkward and sometimes changed the meaning. I will certainly bow to consensus. User:Baseball Bugs may have some input. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If I recall correctly Baseball Bugs is banned from AN and AN/I, so we won't be seeing him around here any time soon. For what it's worth I don't like split infinitives either, and support the IP's mass editing. --Viennese Waltz 08:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please take note of the section Split infinitive § Current views. Changing the grammar in standing versions to accommodate one's personal predilections based on an outdated prescriptivist viewpoint is IMO a no-no. This is not essentially different from the MOS:RETAIN rule. Mass editing to accommodate such an outdated prescription is disruptive.  --Lambiam 09:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not about being prescriptive, it's about improving readability. To take one of the IP's many edits at random [77]: "the tendency of an object not to change" reads better than "the tendency of an object to not change". --Viennese Waltz 10:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I find the ease of readability to be the exact opposite of what you do. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The IP appears to consistently be unsplitting infinitives—see that article for more details. (And now you, also, are one of the unhappy few.) Doing this en masse is probably disruptive. Shells-shells (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at a few, and to me they feel like actual (very minor) stylistic improvements. Feel free to not agree with me.^[78]  --Lambiam 10:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is apparently an area where reasonable editors may disagree. The age of the editor may also play into this, as what was taught and accepted has changed over time, and apparently the age of the teacher may also play into this, as some current teachers are still teaching what was accepted practice 100 years ago. I'm 72 and find that most of the changes make the text more awkward, so I reverted to the status quo version as I didn't see the changes as improvements worthy of such mass editing. In that regard, I find the status quo (assuming many editors make up that group) outweighs any personal preferences by me or the IP.

Lambiam's comment is quite relevant. Going around and mass changing longstanding language to suit one's personal preference can be seen as disruptive.

So there are changing English language rules, MOS rules, and retain issues at play here, and they are all very different things. As I wrote before, I will certainly bow to consensus. Do we have rules that cover this situation, or rather, which rules should weigh the most here? Who has the Solomonic wisdom to cut this Gordian Knot, hopefully in a way that will improve our MOS for future use? We need a precedent-setting solution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I made the comment as a general principle (if it ain't broken, don't fix it) before I had looked at these changes. After looking at the actual changes, I do not think they are disruptive. While I wouldn't go out of my way to make these changes – I have other pet peeves – when I imagine myself copy editing any of these articles, I think I might well apply specifically these very changes myself as part of a general effort to improve the article, while being fully aware that the prescriptive injunction against split infinitives in general is without merit; in fact, I split infinitives myself without qualms whenever it feels more natural to me.  --Lambiam 19:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I've encountered individual editors who have a fixation on certain grammatical rules or word choices and do nothing but make changes related to that fixation. The pragmatic decision I came to personally is that if the change isn't wrong and it doesn't interfere with reader understanding, trying to stop that editor from scratching that personal itch is more trouble than it's worth. Especially in the case of easily-changed IPs. YMMV. Schazjmd (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration committee 2023 election: nominations to start in a month

The nomination period for the 2023 arbitration committee election will start in just under a month. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to talk to them now, well in advance of the election. For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

What is the bar for reporting POV pushing?

This isn't a question with a simple answer, but it is a question that demands an answer. I've been trying to help out with some of the hectic activity related to the Arab–Israeli conflict CTOP. It should surprise no one that I've found several specific editors who always show up to defend a certain side rather than to build an encyclopedia, and their activity is not only at a much higher frequency than the editors trying to build the article (i.e. bludgeoning), but in general their attempts to tilt discussions are making it more difficult to make any progress in the area. This is endemic among both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors. My question is this: when do I report an editor to ANI or AE for consistently showing up to insert a POV? What diffs should we bring when (not if) we attempt to break up these POV tag team groups? I ask about the P/I area because that's what's relevant right now, but this question applies to all CTOPs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

My question is this: when do I report an editor to ANI or AE for consistently showing up to insert a POV?

Everyone (and every source) has a POV so I don't think that is here nor there, per se, it is how it is expressed. We have WP:IDHT and WP:BLUDGEONING, some others, those are usually sufficient for a complaint if there is enough of it.

these POV tag team groups? Tricky to prove and when something seems like teaming, it may in fact not be. Selfstudier (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it can be tricky to prove, and there should be a high bar for proving POV pushing. But at the same time, there should also be a high bar for conduct since we're talking about CTOPs. And this conduct includes always supporting the same "side" at the expense of P&G (WP:GAMING is listed as one of the main guidelines at WP:CTOP). The whole point of CTOP is that editors are held to a higher standard, but this rarely pans out in reality. The Genocide against Palestinians AfD is what convinced me that a discussion needs to be had. Once again, there are numerous editors !voting keep or delete depending on their ideological preferences, even though they !vote the opposite way when it's an article with a different slant. I don't believe that editors who engage in that sort of gaming/CPUSH are fit to edit in a CTOP. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest reporting them to AE (not ANI) as soon as you have around 3 convincing diffs of their misbehavior. Unfortunately the community doesn't seem too willing to deal with CPUSHers or BLUDGEONers, so the diffs need to be fairly rude or egregious in some way. And of course, make sure someone has given them a CTOP {{Alert}} on their user talk for that topic area. This is advice based on personal experience and may not be perfect, so take with a grain of salt. Hope it helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request backlog

Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests has unanswered requests from almost a month ago. I've fulfilled several of the oldest ones, but currently 38 remain. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

+1, currently 31 and User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable at 26. Might notify Teahouse as well. NotAGenious (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for a block review

• Solavirum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nemoralis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Samral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maqa001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ulviyya Karim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm asking other administrators to comment on a series of blocks I made a few days ago. Background: in February 2021, Solavirum was topic banned from the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area as an arbitration enforcement action (recorded here). There were multiple breaches of the tban, each met with time-limited blocks. Later, an SPI case was raised, based on concerns that Solavirum was LOUTSOCKing to continue editing in the topic area. I found that the concerns were valid, and indef blocked him in May 2022. In April of this year, he reached out to me on his talk about the possibility of an unblock. I discussed the standard offer, but also observed that he was occasionally logging into (but not editing with) an undeclared and unblocked alt account - this discussion is all still on their talk at User_talk:Solavirum#Question.

Fast forward to September, and Solavirum again reached out to me asking about the possibility of an unblock under the WP:SO. While considering this, I ran a check on them to see whether there had been any further socking. I observed that all of Solavirum's activity within the CU window was all coming from a single IP, which was also being used by a number of other accounts, all of which were technically indistinguishable from one another, and which were editing within minutes of one another: Nemoralis, Samral, Maqa001 and Ulviyya Karim (as well as the unused accounts TestAccount3434334, TestAccount23409234, TestAccount123213 and TestAccount3323). I interpeted this as obvious block evasion, and hit the block button on all the accounts. Since then, Solavirum has protested that those accounts belong to coworkers or similar who share his IP, and Nemoralis has requested unblock, saying the same thing. I took a look at the accounts on meta, and observe that while they have relatively few edits over here, they are quite active on azwiki, where some of them hold advanced permissions (including sysop for Solavirum and Nemoralis); Nemoralis also had a notice at the bottom of his userpage stating that he may share IPs with the members of this group, which includes all of the non test accounts listed above; I have also been contacted by another sysop on azwiki, White Demon, who asserts that he knows these individuals in real life, and can vouch for them being separate people.

My concern about unblocking these accounts is the level of overlap between their editing interests, and those of Solavirum. Here are some interaction analyser results:

• Solavirum and Nemoralis - over 120 pages, a remarkable number given that Nemoralis has fewer than 2,000 edits on this project
• Solavirum and Samral - about 30 pages, and Samral has fewer than 1,000 edits here
• Solavirum and Maqa001 - just the one page, so not very concerning.

Some more observations. Nemoralis and Samral contribute to the same topic areas (Nagorno-Karabakh related); Mawa001, who has very little overlap in terms of specific articles, seems to have a different focus. The only edits Nemoralis ever made to Emblem of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (an exceedingly low-traffic article) were to reinstate some changes that Solavirum had previously made. Nemoralis has added stuff here on enwiki that is very similar in terms of content and sourcing to content written by Solavirum on frwiki and on azwiki.

So, I am here to ask the community if they would be comfortable with an unblock of these accounts. To me, if I accept the assertion that the accounts are controlled by different people, it looks like Solavirum, Nemoralis and Samral are improperly coordinating offwiki, in a topic area that Solavirum is banned from, which makes me uncomfortable, to say the least. If others think that I am jumping at shadows, or have acted beyond the limits of the mandate the community has given me, then I will unblock and apologise. Thanks in advance for your input, and apologies for the length of this post. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse blocks. Even if we accept the argument that they're all in the same building and coordinating, then that's still a breach of Solavirum's block I would have thought, so my thought is that you did the right thing to block them, and they should remain blocked. Whether they are or aren't administrators on az-wiki isn't really a concern for us either, and that doesn't even prove they're separate people necessarily as I have no idea how robust that project's sock-checking is.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'm copying the following response from Nemoralis from their talk page:

  Hello everyone. I acknowledge the concerns raised by Girth Summit and others regarding off-wiki coordination. However, I want to assure you that such a thing is out of the question. I've been volunteering for Wikimedia projects since 2017. I hold sysop and interface administrator rights in azwiki, filemover rights in commons, and autopatrolled (or autoreviewer) rights in various wikis. I am also against off-wiki coordination. As an admin in azwiki, I have initiated discussions about such groups numerous times (I can provide links if needed). It's important to note that most of the articles at the top of the list (Editor Interaction Analyser / sigma.toolforge.org) are from 2019, a time when I only knew Solavirum from wikicamps and meetings.

  Regarding my edits or restorations of the same articles as Solavirum: The Armenia-Azerbaijan topic isn't very broad, and many of these articles are already on my watchlist. It's highly probable that we will edit the same articles. I noticed Emblem of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic article on my watchlist, which is why I edited it (or more accurately, reverted the title change). I was unaware that Solavirum had done the same thing ~3 years ago. Regarding Zouaves Paris, I noticed this article in the "Terrorism in Azerbaijan" navigation box below while reading Murder of Ziya Bunyadov, an article I intend to create here. I was curious about the connection between [Zouaves] Paris and terrorism in Azerbaijan. Thus, I discovered information about this group's involvement in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and decided to include it in the article here.

  Lastly, I want to express my disappointment that some users believe Solavirum is using me as a meatpuppet. I've been on Wikip(m)edia for a long time (~7 years) and during this time, it's quite normal for me to form my own opinions (which may coincide with others). In the course of my contributions here, I've created two articles with a total size of over 200k bytes and am currently working on a third article, which I was planning to nominate to DYK for a fact in the article. I want to say again that I'm not here solely for some purpose, as outlined by WP:MEAT. Thanks in advance. Regards, Nemoralis (talk) 13:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• For my part, I'll reiterate that I would find it very surprising for someone who has made so few edits to overlap with another editor quite so much; it's not just the narrowness of Armenia-Azerbaijan either, I see unrelated pages like Ben Shapiro and Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order (!) in there as well. I would also question why Emblem of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic would have been on his watchlist, as he asserts it was, since he had never edited it prior to 9 October when he reinstated Solavirum's changes (indeed, discounting automated edits and bots, only five accounts have ever edited the page, including its original author, Solavirum and Nemoralis.) Girth Summit _(blether) 14:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• I am not going to make a bolded recommendation – I'd rather leave that to more experienced editors who have reviewed their editing overlap – but here are some thoughts.
  • Here are two large-ish talk-page diffs from July 2021 (Nemoralis, Solavirum) – I went back that far to be sure that there was no contamination from LLM-generated text. They show quite different levels of language proficiency, which supports the claim that these accounts are operated by different people.
  • Solavirum and Nemoralis clearly know each other very well – I don't know which browsers my colleagues use. That makes the claim of completely uncoordinated editing less credible.
  • Both editors being sysops on azwiki and involved in dealing with socking and coordinated editing there counts against them IMO. Given that experience it should have been clear to Solavirum that, on the most charitable interpretation, they were sailing very close to the wind of the policy on meatpuppetry and that this should have been disclosed in the request for unblock, given that the block was for socking to evade a topic ban. Solavirum's evasiveness regarding the alt account, the loutsocking, and now this, is very unimpressive.
  • Regarding the merits of the blocks, I think that they are clearly within admin discretion and probably blocks that any reasonable CU would have made on the evidence presented. I would suggest that any unblock be contingent on the editors being considered a single user per WP:SHARE; i.e. at least contingent on Solavirum's topic ban being extended to the other users. Wham2001 (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-EC editor-led ARBPIA AfD discussion

Can we get some eyes on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bushra al-Tawil - this is a deletion discussion that is clearly within the scope of WP:ARBPIA, but has been inundated with non-extended confirmed editor voting, including, in fact, the nominator's - which raises all sorts of jurisdictional issues. I'm involved, so I don't want to police it. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A non qualified editor can't participate in the discussion, never mind start a discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've procedurally closed the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Should we also EC protect the original article Bushra al-Tawil? Are we pretty proactive about protecting every single ARBPIA article, or is it on a case by case basis? Also do we have to log every protection? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, yes/in-between/yes. It's case-by-case in the sense that we are allowed to use discretion and are not expected to be catching these articles as they are created (as we lack the technology/staffing to do that reliably), but for a subject this clearly embedded in the conflict the protection is clearly appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Thank you. Not sure how this follow-up posting by the nominator requesting an EC editor to re-nominate it sits - feels sort of canvas-y, but I've never grasped the rules on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's canvassing, although in this case Eladkarmel was already a participant in the discussion so I don't think it would be appropriate to consider Eladkarmel inappropriately-canvassed should they choose to reopen a discussion. I'll warn Dazzling4 appropriately. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

AIV is backed up.

There are around 20 reports on AIV right now, some have been there from some time. Seawolf35 (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; it's empty at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

image displayed on the Labour Party (UK) page preview

The image displayed on the Labour Party (UK) page preview is obviously inappropriate. It isn't clear how it can be changed since the page preview isn't generated from the content on the page, which is in any case semi-protected. Penbottleglasses (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Where are you seeing this preview? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

In the page preview for the article, it shows what appears to be some rather chunky stew. I'm trying to track down the source, but don't let that stop anyone from also doing the same. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was vandalism on Template:Labor. I've purged some pages, and it seems that Labour Party (UK) now no longer shows the image. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like template vandalism [79], already reverted. Don't know why the page preview hasn't caught on. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Or perhaps it has now, I can't see this anymore after purging the page. —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Page preview is dependent on the system cache, so if that hasn't happened (either manually or by the servers refreshing after a template change) an image like that will still show up (even hours after the primary vandalism has been reverted). Primefac (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

COI editing on Chinawhite (nightclub)

There appears to be a newbie with an obvious COI with Chinawhite (nightclub) adding business information to the article. I reverted initially but he reverted and added sources. It's rambling to read and spam-like, but perhaps there's something in there which would be worth mentioning. I suspect if I extracted what is relevant and merged into another section he'd restore his version. Can you look into it, thanks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked as spam. Secretlondon (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Rabid Islamophobia and Nazi apologetics. Again

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

---

The Latvian user @Egilus: I complained about yesterday for forcing a pro-Cukurs blogspot as a source in Wikipedia continues to promote Nazi propaganda. He refers to Herberts Cukurs war crimes as "alleged", calls him a commie collaborator (but thinks calling him a Nazi one id defamatory). He downplays the war crimes of the Waffen SS who he think's wasn't Nazi and thinks it is wrong to call the Waffen SS Nazi. But now he is being a comedian, calling Hamas rockets "your Muslim missiles" to me and blaming Kazakhstan for everthing from that to the war in Ukraine and said that my username KazyKazyKazakhstan is a Nazi-similar username "listening to the accusations of Nazism that you expressed in various Wikipedias from a person with a similar nickname is at least strange" even though my username is just joke at the expense of Herman Cain for his comments about neighbor Uzbekistan and is absolutely not a mockery of Ukraine at all. Kazakhstan does not share a border with Ukraine or Gaza for the record. Kazakhstan is a secular state with good diplomatic relations with Israel and has no part in the Hamas rocket program. Kazakhstan is not Russia. Kazakhstan is a state that tries to keep positive diplomatic relations with all countries whenever possible but at an arm's distance because diplomacy is always better than war. For the record I am not anti-Ukraine I just target Ukrainian copyright violations even less than I target Kazakhstani copyright violations and I have made article Ukrainian Oleksiy Ananenko who led the Chernobyl "suicide squad" that saved Europe from catastrophe. Please prohibit this anti-Kazakh user from editing Kazakh articles at a minimum and issue punitive sanctions for his Nazi apologetics and Islamophobia. I would like to once again say that calling Cukurs a war criminal and saying the Arajs Kommando did Nazi war crimes against Jews is not a false accusation you can read the wikipedia article about the Arajs Kommando if you do not believe me.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Egilus is insisting on keeping references to the Nazi magazine Journal of Historical Review in the name of "neutrality". Again, be protected the page so that I couldn't remove the reference even after I clearly told him that it was a Nazi magazine.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• The OP failed to notify Egilus. I've just done so. I've also blocked the OP for 72 hours for personal attacks. Although the discussion at Talk:Remembrance Day of the Latvian Legionnaires is replete with attacks and inflammatory rhetoric, the worst thing the OP has accused Egilus of is the "your Muslim missiles" statement. Although Egilus was clearly provoked by the OP's comments, Egilus should not have made the statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  I have to admit that you are right, for an old user like me it was quite bad. I’ll just clarify that my breakdown was still caused by the military situation, and the conflict with another user, which began not here, but in the Latvian version, is only secondary. But with my extensive experience on Wikipedia, this is a very poor excuse. -- Egilus (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Can't you both just calm down and thrash out the content issues on talk pages, when you are both able to edit? Plenty of people had ambiguous views in World War II, most notably the Soviet Union and fellow communists who supported the Nazis from the start but then changed sides when they invaded that country. I had never heard of Herberts Cukurs before, and it seems like he was a nasty piece of work, but we need to describe him accurately according to what reliable sources say. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Phil Bridger, I do not think that the Soviet Union and fellow communists who supported the Nazis from the start is in any way an accurate brief summary of what happened. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression agreement that lasted less than two years from 1939 to 1941, and otherwise, the Nazis and the USSR were bitter enemies for 12 years. Cullen328 (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  A non-agression pact with a secret protocol that partitioned Central and Eastern Europe between them, led to an essentially joint Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland and was broken by the Nazis, not the Soviets, all of which would be relevant if this conflict wasn't about one editor making personal attacks against another. –Turaids (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  By "from the start", as I thought was clear from the context, I meant "from the start of World War II", not "from the start of the Nazis' rise to power" or anything else. Anyway, this is a side issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Cukurs is a perfectly non-ambiguous historical figure. Just a big-scale Holocaust organizer. Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the persistent and provocative nature of KazyKazyKazakhstan's own profanities, threats, demands, insults and accusations over the course of four days in Egilus' talk page on Latvian Wikipedia, Remembrance Day of the Latvian Legionnaires talk page and then their own talk page after being blocked, disregarding an adminstrator's (Papuass) request to "keep civil attitude towards others" and ignoring repeated requests from an uninvolved editor (Alaexis) to provide sources for their claims, and having already filed a very similar Administrators' noticeboard report on Egilus just 5 days ago, I think this calls for a WP:BOOMERANG. And that's not to say, that a few of the points raised by KazyKazyKazakhstan aren't valid (such as that anonymous self-published blogspot pages don't belong on Wikipedia) or that Egilus' brash style of communciation or remark about "your Muslim missiles" also didn't escalate the situation to some extent, but Egilus has expressed remorse for his limited role, while I'm not so convinced that KazyKazyKazakhstan has learned anything from this experience and won't just continue making personal attacks and filing Administrators' noticeboard reports on editors they disagree with. –Turaids (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet one place of that conflict -- Egilus (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Making gross overgeneralizations like many Latvians are romanticizing this monster and trying to whitewash his war crimes. has definitely gone beyond personal attacks and escalated into hate speech. –Turaids (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - "many Latvians are romanticizing this monster and trying to whitewash his war crimes" said in the context of someone promoting a blog that calls Cukurs a Latvian national hero is hate speech, but said blog that accuses Jews of talking about the Holocaust fleece Europeans of money (textbook anti-semitic trope) and uses phrases like "alleged gas chambers" is not hate speech? Do you even know what hate speech is?--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you also think that this is not hate speech? "All of the accusations against Herberts Cukurs, were lying and irresponsible. Some Israeli entities as the center Simon Wiesenthal, insist on maintaining that farce, because yours negotiates highly lucrative depends on those lies.In the day in that they could not be used of those lies, with certainty they will go the bankruptcy. One day, with certainty, the Jews will have to recognize that they committed a terrible mistake, when slandering and to murder an innocent one. Con man as Simon Wiesenthal, and his/her bully Efraim Zuroff, they should be banished, and in the very close future, they will render bills in the justice, for the crimes that committed against innocent, with the only purpose of they fill their pockets with dirty money." (again from the so-called "reliable" blog that Egilus likes so much). If people think that blog is good, they have no right to claim to be a victim of hate speech, because that blog is full hate speech.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No, let me get this straight, so you made the statement about "many Latvians" based on your interactions with... two Latvian editors, one of whom you specifically engaged on their discussion page (instead of posting on the article talk page or even the community hub) and the other who actually agreed with you on removing the blogspot. And nothing that some random blogspot in Brazilian Portuguese says or doesn't say allows you to say something like that. Two wrongs don't make a right. –Turaids (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

How is that hate speech? Hate speech would be saying "all Latvians are racially Nazis" (not my opinion just an example), not just simply recognizing that there are many Latvians who try to defend Cukurs, as evidenced by the page history of his Latvian article and the press coverage of events dedicated to celebrating Cukurs. If anyone defamed the Latvian people it was Egilus for insisting that the Latvian people agree with his disgusting support of Holocaust denialism blog.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not a statement attributed to an essential characteristic, is not generalized to all members of that nationality, and it is clearly about the specific political content being discussed. Further, the statement is simply factually accurate as evidenced by commentary on that very trend in international media over a prolonged period of time:

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/canadian-government-condemns-parade-in-latvia-to-honour-nazi-ss-unit/wcm/22536036-6a6e-4370-8213-dcce71024054/amp/

https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/society/nazi-hunter-zuroff-condemns-cukurs-musical.a101688/

as well as in academic scholarship:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/48595523?typeAccessWorkflow=login

Latvia also had a day of remembrance for Cukurs’ SS unit from 1990-1998 and currently has a major political party in their legislature advocating for the return of said remembrance day:

http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/on-target-no-denying-latvias-nazi-past

National Alliance (Latvia)

You appear to be engaging in an attempt to abuse the moderation system, no reasonable and unbiased party would consider that statement “hate speech”. 2601:644:8584:2800:14B6:31CB:E460:2663 (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Please login under your username to continue this discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll weigh in since I've been tagged here. I agree with u:Turaids that KazyKazyKazakhstan raised some valid points. Let's give them a chance to make conclusions and contribute to Wikipedia while following the Civility policy. Alaexis_¿question? 20:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

And to finally start providing reliable sources for any of the claims they make from now on. –Turaids (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The blog has no place in Wikipedia, removing it was right, period. There is no valid debate or anything murky about it. That blog was FASCIST. Let’s take a look at the blog that Egilus thinks is a “reliable source” so reliable that it was worth editwarring to keep in the article. Quote:

“Below I have compiled a list of former NS bureaucrats and camp personnel who after the war died in a fashion which could be described as “convenient” to the upholders and propagators of the officially sanctioned Holocaust narrative. They are all individuals who must have had insight into the truth regarding the “Final Solution” and the alleged gas chambers.” (italics added for emphasis)

There’s also an article accusing Simon Wiesenthal of being a greedy Jewish liar and other typical anti-Semetic tropes and other Nazi propaganda. I don’t deny that I called him (Egilus) Nazi apologist, but how can anyone who isn’t a Holocaust denier say that this blog is a reliable source? I will not file another thing on this noticeboard if Egilus admits that the blog was Nazi propaganda and that the gas chambers were real, the Arajs commando committed war crimes - which should not be hard to do. He apologized for the Muslim rockets statement (and should apologize to the community of Muslim Wikipedians for it), but he still hasn’t expressed any remorse for promoting that blog that even many fellow Latvians think is too extreme. I am remorseful for being uncivil to Egilus as an editor but I am not remorseful for edit warring to remove the link to the blog, nor will I apologize for saying that blog was Nazi propaganda. The gas chambers are not "alleged" they were real. The crimes of the Arajs commando are not "alleged" they were real.KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I think people really need to understand how much of a provocation it is to call that blog a reliable source and edit-warring to restore it was. There is nothing that justifies promoting an anti-Semetic rag like that. It should never have been in the article in the first place and restoring the blog and praising it is absolutely despicable. You cant just say that there is nothing wrong with a blog that uses phrases like "alleged gas chambers" and expect people to not get emotional about it. This all started because I watched a documentary about Cukurs so I read his article and checked out the Latvian and Hebrew versions and I was just completely dumbfounded that a link to that blog was in Wikipedia. I was even more dumbfounded and just shocked that anyone would defend it or defend Cukurs. There is no dispute that he was in a position of leadership in the Arajs commando and there is no dispute that the Arajs commando mass murdered Jews (expect among Holocaust deniers). I never expected this to become such a controversy and blow up like this.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was wrong to say that "many" Latvians were celebrating him, I based this off of Egilus suggesting that the Latvian Wikipedia community had a consensus that the Holocaust-denying blog was a reliable source. I am glad to see that other Latvians agree with me that the blog does not belong in Wikipedia. But we still need to address Egilus thinking that blog was a reliable source. My overly broad statement about Latvians liking Cukurs pales in comparison to the articles about Jews on the blog.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 00:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You have to finally start taking accountability for your own actions, instead of blaming everything you do or say on someone else or using your outrage as an excuse. I cannot help but to read your last sentence as: "I can say nasty things about Latvians, because there's a blog in Brazilian Portuguese out there that says much nastier things about Jews". You've clearly lost it. –Turaids (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

First Egilus should take respobnsiblity and admit that the Nazi blog that he actively promoted was not a "reliable source". You don't get to praise a Nazi rag that actively promotes Holocaist denial and encourages violence against Jews and then claim to be a victim when called a Nazi apologist for promoting the blog. My un civil words are not the main problem here. A supposedly experienced editor thinking the Mark Weber Nazi rag is "reliable" is the wider issue here. And the "Muslim missles" attack when confronted about his Nai promotion.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And yet you were the one who got blocked, not him. And yet he has not tried to restore the blogspot link after another editor removed it 6 days ago and has expressed remorse about making the "Muslim missles" remark, while all you've done is continue to double down on your personal attacks. I'll have you know that edit summaries are also not a place to take jabs at other editors. You don't seem to have learned anything from this experience. –Turaids (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Why should I when Egilus hasn't expressed remorse for promoting a blog that denys the existance of gas chambers? You want me to say "sorry for being rude to people who promote Holocaust denialism"? Other people on the RS noticeboard all agreed that the blog was terrible but Egilus hasn't expressed any remorse. Blocker of me made no look at the blog in question only read my remarks calling him a Nazi apologist which is a very accurate description of someone who unrepentedly considers that Nazi trash blog a "reliable source".--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No one also objected to you being blocked for 72 hours for making personal attacks, so that should tell you something as well. So much for giving you a chance to make conclusions and contribute to Wikipedia while following the Civility policy. –Turaids (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody outside of Latvian Wikipedia thinks that the blog is a relible source. the RN board widely agree that the blog is disgusting and that I never should have had to argue that the blog was bad. Egilus still hasn't apologized for promoting the blog, so much for giving him a chance, he has had days to admit that the gas chambers were real and that Mark Weber is not a reliable source. I will continue to use profanity to describe the blog, civility is for other wikipedia editors, not for outsiders like Weber and Cukurs. There is huge consensus from everyone minus Latvian wiki that Cukurs and Weber are the bad guys, but apparently saying that is anti-Latvian now.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Continue with your personal attacks against other editors and hate speech towards other nationalities and next time the Administrators' noticeboard report will be about you and the block will probably be much longer than just 3 days. –Turaids (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't have anything against the Latvian people. I just strongly oppose the attempts to rehabilitate Cukurs and the Arajs commando. Saying that Cukurs, Arajs, and Weber are bad is not hate speech. I certainly wish more Latvians would stand up and speak out against the Holocaust denialism that some vocal editors of Latvian Wikipedia are promoting unrepentantly. I have never called the whole Latvian people Nazi or suggested that the whole Latvian people deserved collective punishment. That Nazi blog, on the other hand, is undeniably hate speech.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You clearly do, which is especially alarming at a time when there is a war very close to both of us escalated over the very same pretext of a large portion of certain population being Nazi supporters. And the fact that you even openly admitted to basing your hate speech on a single person's word is despicable (I based this off of Egilus suggesting that the Latvian Wikipedia community had a consensus that the Holocaust-denying blog was a reliable source.), but even more despicable was your attempt at falsely implying that instead I had called your insults of a Nazi-supporting Holocaust denier's blog "hate speech" (How can wikipedia function if insulting the blog is "hate speech"). –Turaids (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Last I checked Russia isn't invading Latvia so the war in Ukraine is irrelevant. Stop playing victim, this isnt' about te Latvian people this is about Latvian Nazis promoting Holocaust denialism in Wikipedia, nothing to do with Russia. On could argue that Latvians constantly defending Cukurs and **** like the Nazi Journal of Historical Review is beneficial to Russia. I'm starting to wonder if Egilus is a double-agent working on behalf of Russia o embarass Latvians, seeing as he makes a point of loudly defending Nazi references whenever the opportunity presents itself. I still won't apologize for saying that the many Latvians who celebrate Cukurs are Nazi sympathizers. You just can't separate the individual from the masses, like communists like to conflate the two all the time.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

“ I will continue to use profanity” That’s not moral and no context is an exception. Primal Groudon (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Nobody outside of Latvian Wikipedia thinks that the blog is a relible source. Why, then, are we having this discussion on English Wikipedia? As I have repeatedly said, Latvian Wikipedia issues are dealt with on Latvian Wikipedia and cross-Wikipedia issues are dealt with on meta. This is nothing to do with us here. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You still don't know what hate speech means do you? Hate speech is calling for mass punishment of Jews for talking about the Holocaust. Hate speech is not saying that people who adore that blog are disgusting human beings. Pretending that the reliabliity of the blog is an innocent matter but the "real" problem is my calling lovers of the blog "Nazis" is grossely innacurate. You still can't grasp that calling Egilus a Nazi apologist was justified because he promoted a blog that had phrases like "alleged gash chambers" despite being told again and again that it was a bad Nazi blog and not a reliable source. He just kept doing mental gymnastics and denying Cukurs crimes. You should be concerned about Egilus claiming his love of the Nazi blog is representative of the Latvian consensus, not me thinking that Latvians who like that blog need to be told that is it a bad source.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Impossible to talk with someone who continuously attributes things to me that I haven't said based on their own preconceived notion of Latvians as general supporters of Nazis and Holocaust deniers. –Turaids (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My preconceived notion of Latvians was of a people who make great cheese and are good at seafaring with a very small number of vocal of whackjobs [the Cukurs-lovers] just like every single ethnic group has a its whackjobs [mine included]. I wrongly assumed that Latvians were near-universally not proud of Cukurs being of Latvian origin and were disgusted by his crimes and would be very grateful to me for removing the blogspot link and never imagined anyone on Wikipedia would restore it. Unfortunately my preconceived notion was wrong. And no, I don't think all Latvians are Holocaust deniers. But I do think that people praise a Holocaust-denying blog are Holocaust deniers.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There's no point in saying "period" if you're just going to continue talking about it. I've already stated my view that a blogspot like that doesn't belond on Wikipedia in my very first comment here, so please (re)read it if that's still unclear to you. –Turaids (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

It seems very bizarre to be claiming that KazyKazyKazakhstan is engaging in hate speech or saying “nasty things” by commenting on an evident, widely discussed, and ongoing political controversy in Latvia over recognition, celebration, or historical revision regarding Latvia’s SS units and Cukurs in particular. Elsewhere in this talk page I have linked a range of media and academic publication discussing this.

It’s not an appropriate accusation to claim these statements constitute hate speech or a form of national disparagement. 2601:644:8584:2800:14B6:31CB:E460:2663 (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

What is bizzare is to have an anonymous user with zero edits suddenly join an Administrators' noticeboard discussion and pretend not to see the disconnect between articles about controversies and an editor's blanket statement that casts a large portion of a certain nationality as romanticizers and whitewashers of Nazi war criminals. –Turaids (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You don't understand that "many" and "most" are very different words. If you think that a large portion of Latvians are Cukurs supporters, that's an embarassment for Latvians not me. "Many" can be a small minority of a population. There are millions of Latvians, so even if 0.1% of them are Cukurs fans (not a blanket part of Latvian population), you still have many Latvians who support him and as result create all this idolotry of him. If I said that most Latvians were Cukurs idolators, that would be defamation and hate, but many is not a false or hateful statement. No apologies for insulting Cukurs fans. If people don't want to be called Nazi they shouldn't idolize Nazis like Cukurs.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you want to understand the contributions of in IP6, you should look at the /64 range: [80]. --JBL (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

So a five days old anonymous user with 14 prior edits, 12 of whon have been about a single article, I stand corrected. –Turaids (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be good if you adopted a less combative attitude in this conversation; I did not "correct" you, I provided some additional information that you might have found helpful, yet here you are trying to have a fight with me about it. Similarly, you say (above) "impossible to talk with someone ..." -- but apparently not so impossible as to prevent you from making more than 20 comments in this discussion. Perhaps you could just chill and let uninvolved people discuss the issue? JBL (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn't mean it as a attack, just that I don't think there is a big difference between a one day or five day old user for a conflict has been dragging on for six days already. –Turaids (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I am not going to weigh in all of the inter-personal drama between these editors. There are enough admins already on that. I will confine myself to stating a fairly obvious point; blogs are very rarely accepted as RS. What flies or doesn't on the Latvian Wiki is neither here nor there. Our policies and guidelines are what we go by. If there is an argument over this particular source, it should probably be handled at WP:RSN. Based on what I've seen I would extremely dubious about this blog. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The blog was already removed 6 days ago before this or many of the other discussions. I wasn't part of any of the previous discussions involving KazyKazyKazakhstan either, but decided to insert myself here after seeing them repeatedly use the talk pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. –Turaids (talk) 08:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And Egilus has had 6 days to admit that restoring the links to the Nazi blog was very, very, very wrong in the first place. And if Egilus doesn't want me to call his muslim missles comment stupid then maybe he should read the quran and understand that inanimate objects cannot be beleiving muslims.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And you had three days to reflect on what exactly got you blocked, but it's starting to seem like three days wasn't long enough.. –Turaids (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And I'm still waiting for Egilus to admit that the gas chambers were real and Mark Weber is not reliable. If he can't admit that I won't apologize to him. I've reflected more and I've come to the conclusion that it is worth considering shuttind down Latvian Wikipedia for 3 days if anything needs to be done seeing as it is so hard for Latvians to admit that Cukurs isn't a great guy.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Just the fact that you continue insisting on someone's apology to even admit that you shouldn't have made your blanket statements about "many Latvians" romanticing and whitewashing Nazi war criminals or being supporters of Nazis and Holocaust deniers says a lot about you. –Turaids (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want me to day that many Latvians whitewash him then Egilus shouldn't have said that many Latvians agreed with him and insisted that if I challenged the link that the Latvian Wikipedia community would side with him. You should be directing your anger at him for defaming your people for saying that the source represents the Latvian consensus. You should be mad at his statements insisting Cukurs is innocent. You should be mad that he humiliated Latvian Wikipedia by promoting the blog.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Still blaming someone else for statements YOU made about "many Latvians". –Turaids (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of your crocile tears. I will not "take responsibility" for saying that the people who idolize Cukurs (many of them are Latvians, yes I said that, and, many are non-Latvians) are Nazi supporters. If you are going to cry, cry about the infant that Cukurs shot for crying, cry about the Jewish women he raped, cry about Jewish family that he burned alive.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

KazyKazyKazakhstan, you used the "thank" tool to express appreciation for my comment above asking another user to chill and let uninvolved editors discuss. Since you have also made more than 20 comments in this discussion, may I extend the same request to you? --JBL (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• It seems unclear whether the complaint is about edits to the English Wikipedia or to the Latvian. As the OP has already been told, the English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over the Latvian Wikipedia, any more than the Latvian Wikipedia can mandate what happens on the English Wikipedia. If you think that the governance of the Latvian Wikipedia is inadequate then you need to raise the issue at meta or with the Wikimedia Foundation directly, not here. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The complaint is that Latvian editors currently active on English Wikipedia continue to defend Herbert Cukurs, a Holocaust-denying blogspot, and the Waffen SS, and then cry hate speech and complain that the only problem is that I am not civil enough because they think that a dead Nazi and Mark Weber deserve more respect than the Jewish people mercilessly slaughtered by Cukurs. Turaids keeps insisting that I bneed to learn a lesson and be sorry but I have nothing to be sorry about editwarring to remoev that link and saying that people who like the blog and claim is is a reliable source are Nazi apologists. Egilus has had plenty opportunity to apologize for promoting Holocaust denial but his friend is just belligerently insisting that I was in the wrong for confronting Egilus's promotion of the trashy scummy racist Nazi blogspot.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger: the first, already closed report was about these edits and this discussion on Latvian Wikipedia, while this report at least originally seems to have been about this discussion on English Wikipedia, but at this point the OP is just all over the place. And then there's OP's third Noticeboard report, which also has been closed already. –Turaids (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That was before Egilus's "Muslim missiles" comment. And this discussion is inevitable since he kept doubling down on defending the Nazi scum baby-killer trash that is Cukurs.--KazyKazyKazakhstan (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I know it's more convenient for you to pretend it didn't happen, because it doesn't fit your narrative, but Egilus said pretty early on that for him personally, Cukurs' membership of Arājs Kommando alone would be enough to decide on the death penalty. The potential consequences of any of his words and actions are for him deal with. But how a relatively short and already resolved conflict between two editors can be reescalated into one of them going around different talk pages across multiple Wikipedias writing slander about the Latvian Wikipedia as a whole and the Latvian people in general is still beyond me. –Turaids (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Where on earth did he say that? Also that doesn't make up for promoting the shitstain Nazi blog as a "reliable source" and literally editwarring and protecting the page to protect the link to the Nazi scum website--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

User:QazyQazyQazaqstan, there was never any attempt to claim that that blog was a reliable source for the English Wikipedia. You haven't listened the many times that you have been told before that we have no jurisdiction over the Latvian Wikipedia, so PLEASE read my last post and complain to someone who can do something about your complaint. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

off-topic, pointless
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are zero situations where using the s-word is morally acceptable. Primal Groudon (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC) Seriously? if htere ever was a time for swearing, describing that blog would be it.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC) “if htere ever was a time for swearing” and there simply is not. Primal Groudon (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC) I agree with QazyQazyQazaqstan that there can be a time for swearing, but do not agree that this is it. Once again, nobody has suggested using that blog as a reliable source on English Wikipedia. That editor, who probably has a perfectly valid complaint, should just fuck off to somewhere competent to hear it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC) There are no circumstances where use of the f word is morally acceptable. Primal Groudon (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC) WP:CIVIL requires that we treat other editors with consideration and respect, it doesn't say that we can't describe Nazis as exactly what they are. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC) “WP:CIVIL requires that we treat other editors with consideration and respect” Doing that and replying with profanity to a comment disapproving of profanity (what Phil Bridger did in his reply to me) are literally mutually exclusive. Doing either one necessarily involves not doing the other. Also, I don’t know why you brought up accusations of Nazism in your reply to me, given that I have nothing to do with that topic or the person that this noticeboard discussion was originally about. Primal Groudon (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC) You complained of QazyQazyQazaqstan using the s-word in relation to Nazis, I'm guessing you meant their use of "shitstain Nazi". Phil Bridger used "fuck" to highlight the juxtaposition of their first and last statement. Neither of these uses are uncivil, or morally wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you need some rest from each other. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Update: Egilus just restored a reference to the Neo-Nazi Holocaust-denying Journal of Historical Review after I removed it, their edit summary was "t first, Wikipedia and its editors should be neutral and show different point of views. You are not politically neutral and can not be an editor." Again, I will not apologize for removing that reference, Wikipedia should not be giving "both sides" to Nazi propaganda and promote a Nazi magazine. The fact that I have a bias against Neo-Nazis is not a disqualification to be an editor, it should be a requirement to be Wikipedia editor to be biased against Nazis. Egilus can't play dumb here, I clearly told him that Journal of Historical Review is a Nazi magazine. He is very clear that he wants to spew the Nazi point of view into Wikipedia and we shouldn't pretend his views are ok. He has made it very clear that he is very biased in favor of the Nazis.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Update again: I showed him that Jounral of Historical Review was a bad source and he said this: "I'm really not interested in this article and its text. But your action was politically motivated for destroing of Wikipedia as place for information and therefore will be always reverted until you not stop destructive behaviour. Besides, you showed beforee full misunderstanding in theme "who is Nazi" and prefers to do discutable changes without disputes before it - it is not normally." In other words, he wants Wikipedia to be a source for finding Nazi propaganda and reverted the edit because it was by me, a revenge-edit. Clearly Egilus needs to be told that Nazi sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if you without discussion will delete anti-Nazi sources, my reaction will be the same. In Latvian Wikipedia it is a standard to dispute controversial changes before making changes in articles, not after it. Especially if a new participant, who has already shown that he does not know the rules well, wants to do it. -- Egilus (talk) 02:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I should never have to defend removing a Neo-Nazi periodical from an article because it never should have been there in the first place and you admit that you think no source I call Nazi is a Nazi source just because I call it a Nazi source, even when every single respected insitution in the world calls it a Nazi magazine--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet again you are bringing up an edit on the Latvian Wikipedia. I think with this lack of understanding we are getting into WP:IDHT territory. Maybe if I shout you will hear me: WE CAN DO NOTHING HERE ABOUT OTHER WIKIPEDIAS. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. If an editor was to persist in inserting the Journal of Historical Review in articles here at en.wiki then they would swiftly find themselves on the end of a block. However, we can do nothing about what Latvian admins think about the situation. I would hope that they would have the same view, but as we have seen in the past, Eastern European wikis can often have different standards. Black Kite (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that Egilus is an admin on Latvian Wikipedia and he just seals a page whenever someone removes sources and then he insist that that Nazi sources are needed for "neutrality".--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not too much can be done here, but reading Egilus' comments on their lv talk page makes it clear their "mindset" and their idea of what an encyclopedia is are not appropriate for en.wikipedia. For sure, we will have to double-check their en.wiki contributions in the future. And it's pretty sad they are administrator in lv.wikipedia. Cavarrone 08:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Need to get some facts straight.

1. The source under discussion (Faurisson, Robert (1982), "Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?", The Journal of Historical Review, 3 (2): 147) is currently used in same article on English Wikipedia to support claim that there are people who question the books authenticity
2. The article in Latvian Wikipedia was poorly formatted (tagged for improvement) and the sources were just dumped at the end. Today it was improved so that references are added to specific claims.
3. Saying that Eastern European standards are different is offensive, because it ignores the fact that the smaller size of the community is the real issue.

Papuass (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that "Eastern European standards are different", we have however seen in the past that some Eastern European wikis can be hijacked by admins with extreme views of various types. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact. I hope that the Latvian Wikipedia does not have that problem, and looking at it (with the language barrier) it appears so far that does not. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Update again: Egilus just said] "By Wikipedia rules, Nazi journal has the same rights as anti-Nazi journal" to defend use of the Nazi magazine. Can we all agree that that is Nazi sympathy? He literally admits he thinks Anti-Nazi journals are no better than Nazi journals. What next, should we be giving Harvard Medicine Journals equal status to Natural News?--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence that that citation is used as one of three references for is "Although many Holocaust deniers, such as Robert Faurisson, have claimed that Anne Frank's diary was fabricated, critical and forensic studies of the text and the original manuscript have supported its authenticity." I don't see much wrong with that. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Egilus doesn't want it as an in-line citation limited to a single sentence, he wants to treat it was read-worthy supplemental literature and equated the magazine to anti-Nazi magazines--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not what I read from Egilus reply. He says that it can be used as a source to confirm what Holocaust denier has claimed (this is how it was used in enwiki and now also on lvwiki). Papuass (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Dude he just said that the magazine has just as much right to be used as a source as an anti-Nazi magazine, and this was not a single line-citation for one sentence, this is was the book list. He started off by defending the source and attacking me for saying every source I don't like is Nazi even though literally every respectable institution agrees it is a Nazi magazine. He is very clear that he thinks it is wrong to have a bias against Naziism.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As it was already pointer out, it was not "Book list", but "References used in article" added by someone who did not how to insert them properly. Papuass (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2023 (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.

Kolya Butternut unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Kolya Butternut (talk · contribs) is unblocked subject to the following restriction indefinitely, which may be appealed after 12 months have elapsed:

Kolya Butternut may discuss no other editor's undisclosed personal details anywhere. This includes both onwiki as well as any other online location or other Wikimedia-associated offline location.

For the Arbitration Committee, Izno (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by a series of motions that:

Motions that passed

Remedy 1 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. The final remedy of Liancourt Rocks ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Remedy 1 of Longevity ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Remedy 2 of Medicine ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Remedy 2 of September 11 conspiracy theories ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded due to the topic area being covered by the post-1992 American Politics contentious topic. All actions taken under the rescinded authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. Remedy 1 of Shakespeare authorship question ("Contentious topic designation") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the contentious topic authorization remain in force and are governed by the procedures. The following remedies from Macedonia 2 are rescinded: Remedy 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned) Remedy 6 (Stalemate resolution) Remedy 30 (Administrative supervision) Editors are reminded that Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed, continues to be a contentious topic. Remedy 6 of the The Troubles case ("One-revert rule") is amended to read as follows: A one revert restriction (1RR), subject to the usual exceptions, is applied to all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Unused Contentious Topics

Sabotage user

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

---

User:Mikeimi deletes all sourced content and replaces sourceless content as if he is one of the vandals of Wikipedia. 1michel100 (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You haven't notified them of this discussion. Please read the big red box at the top of this page. WaggersTALK 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I notified them of the discussion, they should be here anytime soon. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked the OP as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Original poster threatened to report other users to the Wikipedia Sergeant:

• User talk:Mikeimi#This account will be reported to Wikipedia Sergeant

I guess that's you guys?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:37, 19 October 2023 (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.

What should I know now?

Hello admins, Muhammad Ayub Khan should be renamed as Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan). I had requested about it in Wikipedia:Requested moves but it was reverted, see here. It was reverted by a bot operated by User:wbm1058. Hamwal (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Hamwal, you need to follow the instructions at WP:RSPM to request a move, which involves placing a template on the article's talk page. The page you added your request to is a list of requested moves that is maintained by a bot, so adding your request there will result in it being removed automatically. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Looie496

I just found out that he died. He was an administrator at one time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it violates Wikipedia Rule #347: Do not utilize the word 'utilize'... About the best piece of wisdom someone could have left us with.

I see a special issue of Behavioral Neuroscience was dedicated to him. I wonder if he would pass GNG or NPROF. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Stub article created: William E. Skaggs. RIP. Tails Wx 15:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Now past a stub. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Overly Attached Editor

This is an issue about Hipal

Hipal has been reverting edits about exhibitions on Amy Karle. Hipal reverted the 3 edits I made today and didn't seem to check them before doing so. From the history of the article, Hipal has done this before about exhibitions. Hipal appears to be very attached to the article and trying to control it without constructive behavior.

Please see the talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amy_Karle especially at the bottom under "Long laundry list of Exhibitions" where Hipal states: "I strongly suggest proposing changes rather than adding them directly to the article, in order to avoid violating BLP's requirement to get consensus. Please don't add any that don't have an independent, reliable source that meets the standards of BLP. If in doubt, ask here. --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2023 (UTC)" Then when and editor asked he replied "If you don't know, we're not going to make any progress. I've spent far too much time on this already. --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)" without providing any constructive feedback.

Today, I worked on the exhibitions that Hipal has reverted on various occasions throughout the history of the article. I retained valid sources and replaced other sources to ensure that all are independent, removed exhibitions that were poorly sourced, and removed problematic language. Shortly after, Hipal reverted my 3 edits with edit summary "rv exhibits per talk" but added no further mention about it on the talk page.

It appears that Hipal's level of investment in this page may be hindering their objective assessment.

I request that: 1)the exhibitions section be reviewed by unaffiliated editors as Hipal has shown reluctance in evaluating the sources and providing constructive feedback 2)Hipal's edits, comments, and affiliation with this page be analyzed, and if deemed problematic that Hipal and his related accounts are blocked from involvement with the page. (Hipal appears to be both overly attached and orchestrating and coordinating with Netherzone.)

I may take some time to respond due to outside issues. Please take this complaint seriously and investigate. If it needs to be escalated elsewhere please do so. I hope this issue will be resolved. Regards 169.229.6.164 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and administrators do not resolve content disputes. You must gain consensus at Talk:Amy Karle. If you do not gain consensus, then the content that you want to add needs to stay out of the article. There are various forms of Dispute resolution available to you. What is your connection to Amy Karle? Cullen328 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Request to delete Global Day of Jihad asap

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

---

There's an overwhelming consensus to delete Global Day of Jihad – editors agree that no such event has ever been announced or took place. Regretfully, this hoax, perpetuated publicly, has already claimed a child's life (see Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume).

May I ask an uninvolved admin to close the deletion discussion per SNOW? Thank you. — kashmīrī ^TALK 06:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Page deleted. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Just seeing that it was restored as a redirect (the creator attempted a withdrawn deletion review); do we need a RfD now? Nate • (chatter) 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Having looked, the AfD consensus wouldn't extend that redirect. You could try RfD, but given that the day is mentioned at the target of the redirect it seems likely to survive there. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2023 (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.

Andy Ngo RfC review

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.

---

Szmenderowiecki recently made a good faith and generally very well considered closing of a RfC at Andy Ngo dealing with calling Ngo a journalist or not (Talk:Andy_Ngo#RfC:_"journalist"_in_lede). I wish to challenge one part of the closing which is the statement that the description "journalist" does not have consensus to be in the first sentence of the lead, "So there is rough consensus to do it somewhere in the lead, but not in the first sentence," My concern is this appears to be answering not only a question that wasn't asked in the lead but also was largely not discussed by editors who were for or against saying Ngo was a journalist. I opened a discussion on the closer's talk page [81]. Since the location (first vs second sentence of the lead) wasn't discussed by the vast majority of editors this particular conclusion seems hard to pull from the discussion. Thus I'm asking for a close review related to if the discussion can reasonably decide where the term should be used in the lead. Springee (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I left a note on Szmenderowiecki's TALK in regards to the closer's justification that "journalist" is a continuous value-laden label. It's an occupation. The discussion around whether or not it should be used to describe Ngo could be considered continuous, but WP:CONTENTIOUS is quite clear. The argument that it should be removed on MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE grounds is perplexing. If that's the case, then any continuous discussion around occupation would result in automatic removal. Thanks Nemov (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It is evident from the prolonged discussion and RfC participation that "journalist" is CONTENTIOUS in this instance. SPECIFICO talk 15:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There are 2 issues here. The first is if it's reasonable to claim "journalist" is is a contentious label and thus special considerations apply. The second, bigger issue is if this is a supervote. For first vs second/other sentence of the lead to be part of the closing the closer needs to show that editors discussed that aspect and that there was a clear consensus for/against/no-con regarding where the term could appear in the lead. I don't see that location was discussed in any meaningful thus declaring consensus in that area can't reasonably reflect the discussion. Hence, that part of the closing was a supervote and should be struck. Springee (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONTENTIOUS isn't about all terms that people on Wikipedia have disputed; it specifically applies to "value-laden labels", giving examples such as "cult", "racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter" and "perversion". "Journalist" is in no way comparable to these. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The amount of dancing around to even consider the term "journalist" as a contentious term in this case is epidemic of how we in general with out left leaning bias write about people and groups on the opposite extreme. There needs to be a massive course correction here. Masem (t) 16:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We have the exact same "dancing" around the term journalist for left wing figures like Julian Assange and Max Blumenthal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is also true. Just that I think the problem is far more visible (number of articles and how frequently that they come up at the various "drama boards") for those at the extreme right, or even those with connections to that side. But any resolve must address both political sides. Masem (t) 20:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been against both Ngo and Assange labeled as journalist. Nothing to do with right or left in my mind. Consider that the reason this comes up far more often for right-wing "journalists" is that there exist far more far-right wing activists/provocateurs calling themselves journalists. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Contentious terms don't have to be negative. The examples given include "terrorist, or freedom fighter", those are terms that could be applied to the same subject depending on POV. I've no opinion on the particular discussion, but terms that validate a subject can be as contentious as any other label. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Definitely doesn't have to be negative to be contentious, "hero" is one of the more common contentious terms largely because it is so strongly positive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Those two examples aren't occupations. Could a plumber be a contentious term? A person is either an electrician or they're not an electrician. A person's occupation is either described as a journalist or not. Based on this narrow interpretation any argument about occupation means that occupation is now labeled is contentious and must be removed per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. In this case many WP:RS described the person as a journalist. Either way you cut it it doesn't make sense in regards to Ngo. Nemov (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But "journalist" can be contentious, it gives a much more positive image than "activist". In the modern newsscape using pseudo-journalism for political propaganda is all to common, regardless of what side of politics it comes from. Those engaged in it are not journalists, and calling them that gives them a veneer of respectability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Self-stated labels aside (which we are not required to use, but that's not the case here) we should not be trying to pass judgment on standard occupational terms like "journalist" here, rather than claiming it to be value-laden. If the person was at even one point employeed to write news coverage for a news outlet, regardless if it were the NYTimes, Fox News, or RT, they're a journalist. We can talk elsewhere in an article about issues with that career that's documented in sources (as would certainly be the case for Ngo) but trying to play word games with one of the clear occupations he's held seems extremely POVish. Masem (t) 20:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

But as I've stated it's not a standard occupation term any longer, to apply it without backing would be against WP:NPOV as it acts as cover for political activism. Also again, per my previous statement and the one below this, I don't care or have an opinion about the specific subject involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You comment changed as I replied to it, so I'll just restate that I have no opinion on the subject. Whatever is widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject should be used, as per WP:LABEL. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If reliable sources say that such and such term applied to such and such person is contentious why would we not treat it as contentious? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There were WP:RS that said he was a journalist. The closer said it was contentious per MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. Nemov (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Its a long discussion which I was not involved in but there also appear to be RS which said that he was not a journalist and others which said it was contentious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• I think that the closer did a thoughtful and thorough job and thank them for their work. With respect to the structural issue raised here, I think that what what the closer did would be a good creation of a compromise in some other discussion venue, but IMO it is a supervote here and that that aspect should be overturned or set aside. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• That looks like an exceptionally tough close and Szmenderowiecki should be commended for tackling it, Springee and North8000 make some good points though and its unlikely that a tough close of such a long discussion would be entirely uncontentious... I'm not sure if this is significant enough to reopen the discussion for though, but on the plus side if we do hopefully we can reach a clearer consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• Szmenderowiecki did a very good job overall with the close. I do agree with North8000 that the RfC close is a little too broad. However, an overturn seems like overkill. A narrower discussion about the first sentence should be opened now that the question about the lead is settled. It appears that some editors place some value on the occupation of journalism so there may not be support to add it to the first sentence, but that discussion cannot happen with the way the close was worded. I would support an amended close leaving the question of the first sentence up for discussion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Incase there was a question, I'm only challenging the part about not including in the first sentence. I see no issue with the rest of the closing and agree with was on the whole well reasoned.

Springee (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree that it was largely not discussed whether the term should not be included in the first sentence. I specifically raised MOS:LEADBIO and MOS:FIRSTBIO as my main arguments on a number of occasions in the discussion part of the RfC and there were additionally a number of other editors who agreed with my assessment. I specifically noted that it was beside the point whether he was considered to be a journalist or not by others in his field, that what was important was the main reasons for his notability and that journalism wasn't it and that it therefore shouldn't be given prominence in the lede. I think Szmenderowiecki did a very good job with the close and that it should be upheld. TarnishedPath^talk 22:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show any examples where you argued that inclusion in the first sentence was an issue but inclusion in the second sentence is acceptable? There was a significant part of the discussion focused on if we should use qualifiers as part of saying his is a journalist. If you think there was an area where first sentence vs later in the lead was discussed, please provide a link. Looking at both of your MOS links I don't see that either would clearly address this once consensus supports calling him a journalist. Certainly even the sources that were negative about Ngo often identified his journalism as the issue. Springee (talk) 22:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  @User:Szmenderowiecki specifically addressed MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE in a discussion with you and others at User talk:Szmenderowiecki#Andy_Ngo_closing and referenced me and others by name.

  Quoting @User:Szmenderowiecki "The first sentence clearly says that the discussion may end in a closure that does not necessarily answer the question as asked if participants discussed the topic even though it may be seemingly unrelated to the question asked. The second sentence affirms this - if editors discussed a certain topic within the RfC, it may be evaluated for consensus. It need not be the main topic of the discussion. Besides, it is clear that when we are speaking of the lead as a whole, we are also speaking of its first sentence, so if editors want to voice an opinion about the first sentence there, it's fine. My duty is to summarize these comments if they have sufficient support and/or strength. I pointed you to comments that mentioned the first sentence specifically (see also TarnishedPath's comments from 22 September, where they argue that MOS:FIRSTBIO prevents the word "journalist" from being in the lead because it's not Ngo's main claim to fame. I did not mention it in the closure because consensus was not likely to develop either way as to whether this guideline even applies here). In short, I believe that the part with the first sentence fits within the general question asked, and even if it didn't, I am not bound by the RfC question but by the content of the discussion (unless participants misunderstand the question, which is hard to do here)." TarnishedPath^talk 23:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  Notably @Springee there was not one person to address the instances when other editors or myself put forward MOS:FIRSTBIO or MOS:LEADBIO, instead everyone else kept on arguing about whether he was or wasn't a journalist, whether it should be qualified, what reliable sources said about the matter, etc. TarnishedPath^talk 00:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  First, none of us agreed with Szmenderowiecki's use of BUIFIRSTSENTENCE in this case. Second, which editors other than you put forward those MOS sections and why? When the RfC was specifically could we call Ngo a journalist at all and basically none of the discussion was "can we do it in the opening sentence", it becomes a supervote to decide "yes, it can be in the second but not the first sentence". There certainly are RfC's where the issue is "can we call BLP "X" in the lead?" In some of those cases the discussion will have many people who say, "yes in the lead but not in the opening sentence". When a number of people respond that way it's reasonable for a closer to say, "consensus is yes but not in the opening of the lead". That isn't what we had here. Let's put it this way, which editors do you think supported a "yes, but not in the opening sentence" response? What edit of yours do you think supports "yes, but not in the first sentence?" If you can't find sentences that clearly support that closing then it's a supervote. Springee (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Um no, there wasn't basically no discussion. I've already quoted you a portion of text from @User:Szmenderowiecki quoting me to demonstrate there was actual discussion, the opposite of basically no discussion.

  Another editor who was referenced in the discussion you had with Szmenderowiecki was @Coffeeandcrumbs in their vote from 5 September 2023 they wrote:

  "No - The description of "journalist" being given to this person in the lede, in wikivoice, especially in the first sentence lacks NPOV and is UNDUE. It is true, per UNDUE that [n]eutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources, and per BALANCE, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, [we should] describe both points of view and work for balance.

  However, the first sentence (MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE) and opening paragraphs (MOS:OPENPARABIO) should also avoid subjective or contentious terms. The evidence that describing Ngo as a "journalist" is "subjective or contentious" is shown by other users above. The first sentence and opening paragraph should instead include the main reason the person is notable. Ngo is not notable because he is a journalist. He is notable as a social media personality and provocateur. Therefore, to the question of this RfC, "Should we describe Andy Ngo as a journalist in the lede?", the answer is no! Certainly not in the first sentence or first paragraph. Perhaps a later paragraph in the lede section can give a balanced description of the both view points, per BALANCE. But that balance viewpoint is that reliable sources disagree on the viewpoint. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."

  Another editor who was referenced in the discussion you had with Szmenderowiecki was @Davide King who in their vote from 30 August wrote:

  "No because I think, and I am further convinced of this by the fact that we are still discussing it, it is better to have a contextualized and proper sentence than a label that is admittedly contested, not only among us but also by reliable sources. This is what I propose and what I believe is a reflection of what reliable sources say.

  Andy Ngo ... is an American activist, author, and social media influencer ... Many news outlets contested his self-description as a journalist [then we make a summary Aquillion's provided sources, which should probably have a section of his own including the academic sources provided by Isaidnoway, saying that he has been variously described as an agitator, provocateur, et cetera, and that have casted doubts or, to quote TFD, that "His peers, who write for reliable sources do not consider him to be one". Then we mention the various labels used by those who have described him as a journalist, such as "conservative journalist", "right-wing journalist", "independent journalist", "'busybody' journalist", etc.]. ... Politically, he has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right [or just far-right if academic sources consider him as part of a radical right grouping or is consistently placed within that context].

  I think last time, I was for "Yes, but", hoping that a sentence would be created to describe this issue. Ultimately, this time I think there is sourcing in support that the journalist label is contested, that Ngo is best known as an activist, and that there are enough sources that question his "journalism" that the real notability or what we should be saying and discussing is not that he is a journalist but the discussion on whether he is by reliable sources, rather than stating as fact that he is a journalist. I am not convinced by arguments that sources do not say he is not a journalist; they do not need to say that, it is sufficient that they give a different label, meaning that they attribute his notability to being an activist, a provocateur, or whatever other label use to describe rather than journalist (MOS:LEADBIO)"

  Again, I'll point out that when other editors or myself raised the policies of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE or MOS:LEADBIO no one addressed why the points we were raising didn't apply or were unimportant or were superseded by other policy considerations. You were all content to keep discussing whether he was or wasn't an journalist. How many sources said he was or wasn't, etc, etc.

  Ps, if you have any concerns about me pinging individual users, I intend on pinging everyone who was involved when I have a bit of time. TarnishedPath^talk 00:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  My quick count is 45 editors replied. You are saying that two editors, yourself and Davide King, who both opposed calling Ngo a journalist were actually saying, "yes in the lead but not in the first sentence". If this was a major point of discussion I'm sure you can find some additional editors, especially a number of YES !voters who agree that where in the lead was a significant part of the long discussion. Absent that, this is a supervote. Springee (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  This was a discussion in which not one person addressed the policy of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE even though it was raised on a number of occaisons. You were all content having a different discussion. Consensus dictates that the strength of arguments is measured, not just the numbers. TarnishedPath^talk 01:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Ps, I don't think I'd constitute just under 60% Yes and just over 40% No to be a supervote for Yes and again we operate on consensus around here. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't consider the 60-40 = "consensus" to be a supervote either. The supervote aspect (and I do think the closing was good faith BTW) was the part where they felt there was a consensus or not on a topic that was not signficiantly discussed. I think we can address MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE (a MOS, not a policy BTW) right here. Point #4 says, "The first sentence should usually state: 4 One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." So consensus supported journalism as one of those noteworthy positions. Springee (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE states "The first sentence should usually state ... 5. The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)". The main reason Ngo is notable is for reasons other than him being a journalist. I.e, inserting himself into controversy.

  You can play word games if you like but manuals of style are considered policy where I come from. TarnishedPath^talk 02:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Why ignore #4? But let's use #5, his work as a journalist and the subsequent consequences is what made him notable. So BIOFIRSTSENTENCE doesn't justify that part of the closing. But that ignores the bigger issue. The primary problem with this part of the closing is the closing is meant to summarize the discussion. This first vs second sentence stuff was not a significant part of the discussion thus should not have been part of the closing. Springee (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  per 4 ".. avoiding subjective or contentious terms". This was discussed on @Szmenderowiecki user page.

  per 5 "The main reason the person is notable". The main reason they are notable is for their activism and inserting themselves into controversy, this precedes their journalism. If it wasn't for their activism and inserting themselves into controversy we would have never known about them and they would have likely never had a job as a journalist, at least not at any of the publications that we know about today because they came to notability on the back of putting themself in the centre of controversy. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  As others have noted, "journalist" isn't a subjective or contentious term. Also, per 5, Ngo is notable due to his journalism (ie the controversies associated with his journalism). Neither of these are a strong argument to say we cannot use "journalist" in sentence 1 but it's just fine in sentence 2. Springee (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Others have disagreed and stated "journalist" is both subjective and/or contentious, both here and in the RfC. That constituted quite a bit of discussion in the RfC. Per point 5 it doesn't say "The reasons the person is notable", it says "The main reason the person is notable". If Ngo didn't come to notability because of inserting himself into controversy, then he would have never been notable as a journalist. This whole discussion would be moot, the article wouldn't exist. It is a strong argument according to WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. Additionally it was an argument which was put in the RfC and not addressed. The closer did an appropriate job per WP:SUPV in assessing that there had been policy based arguments put for which no alternative response had been provided. TarnishedPath^talk 04:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Note: importantly I've never made any argument for not calling him a journalist anywhere in the article. My only question has been where is the appropriate point in the article to do so given the appropriate wiki policies. TarnishedPath^talk 04:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just reviewed the RfC. Only two editors even mentioned BIOFISRTSENTENCE. The fact that 43 other editors didn't mention it suggests that it wasn't viewed as a significant argument with respect to the question the RfC was asking. Thus it is inappropriate to base a significant part of the closing on a question that wasn't debated by all but two of the participants. The closer clearly felt this was an important question. The correct way to raise the issue would have been to state it as an open question in the closing thus more editors would weigh in. It's certainly improper to have an argument made by only 2 editors given the weight of a consensus 45 editors. Springee (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just saw this reply, and I mentioned the same thing (about two editors) in my comment below. In my view, based on the arguments in the RfC, this should have been another retain the status-quo closure. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Incorrect. Three editors mentioned MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE or MOS:FIRSTBIO which are identical in content. Importantly when we did bring those policy arguments they were not addressed with any alternative arguments policy arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 23:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK, 3 out of 45 editors mentioned FIRSTBIO. For all the long winded discussion no one pushed the point. If you felt it was such a strong point, the point to hang hats on, why not push it when you felt editors weren't able to address it? That seems to be the typical way these things work. If an editor makes a strong point it is often repeated and picked up by others (see the list of sources that changed many minds). But you are saying FIRSTBIO, a MOS guideline that can just as easily support inclusion in the first sentence, was a major point of discussion? Understand that if it wasn't then there was no consensus around it's value to the overall discussion thus any closing that pivots on it would be a supervote rather than a summary of arguments. That gets us right back to the original issue here. There wasn't a consensus or even much discussion regarding where this might be used in the lead and certainly no consensus that it should be moved out of the first sentence. Claiming a "rough consensus" based on 3 of 45 editors making a secondary point is simply not reasonable. Springee (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Refer to WP:SUPV and I quote "It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. (See also WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus.)" TarnishedPath^talk 00:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the general point. However when only 3 editors discuss a point and the other 42 don't see it as important, well that looks more like a super vote vs a summary of consensus. Springee (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you show me where the other 39 editors (not 42) wrote that they did not find Wikipedia policy important, rather than that they were simply engrossed in a back and forth argument about whether he was a journalist or not? If they did write that they didn't find Wikipedia policy important I would find that rather concerning. TarnishedPath^talk 01:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you two knock it off? All either of you are convincing anyone of is not to get involved in this thread. Closure reviews need outside input, not two people involved in the RFC arguing with each other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee: "You are saying that ... were actually saying, 'yes in the lead but not in the first sentence'." Well, I understood the question to mean the first sentence (since the article read "Andy Ngo ... is a conservative/right-wing journalist", I assumed it was mainly about the first sentence of the lead, and is what I believe other users understood, so users like Aquillion or TFD mainly focused on that; I think it was clear the real question was about the first sentence, and my !comment assumed the "Yes in the lead [with a proper discussion of the issue] but not in the first sentence"). So yes, I think that was in fact a good summary of my view and what I meant better than I could write it myself. :D
  
  I think the closure reached the correct conclusion (as an involved user, I am not in the position to talk about defects of form), and their response was reasonable, and what is the best compromise and a path forward (rather than keep having new RfCs about the issue with "No consensus" closures) to improve the lead (it would include journalist as the "Yes" side supported and discuss the issues as the "No" side supported; the closure "Yes [in the lead] but not in the first sentence" sounds like a good compromise to me) and the article itself, which will not be improved as long as we will keep arguing about this when there's a clear compromise solution that this closure perfectly highlighted.
  
  You have your right to appeal, and I understand your reasoning as well, but what is the proposed solution? To hold yet another RfC with yet another result of "No consensus" that will lead us towards further stalemate rather than the compromise this closure provided us that may lead us to improve the article following the closure's suggestions?
  
  @Pincrete, author can be simply changed to say "writer, activist, and social media personality" in whatever order, and additional caveats (conservative, right-wing), is preferred.
  
  Davide King (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  The only kind of writing Ngo does AFAIK is some print journalism/commentary, and one assumes the scripts for his video reports. If he has written anything else, it isn't mentioned in the article anywhere I can see. A writer who produces news reports - even dishonestly biased and awful ones - is called a journalist by us and by in Ngo's case most sources. Why call him a 'writer', which usually means books or long articles? Pincrete (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: "A writer who produces news reports - even dishonestly biased and awful ones - is called a journalist by us." I think this requires some clarity that I hope it will help to better understand the closure and solve those issues, as I agree uninvolved users are the ones who should discuss this.
  
  That does not apply, for example, to James O'Keefe, who is called a journalist by some unreliable sources that also describe Ngo as a journalist, was cited in the RfC, and seems to be a case similar to Ngo but perhaps to the extreme. He is called a "political activist" and "Reception" discusses the fact that he is not considered a journalist despite what you wrote. As for "writer" (other possibilities include "news editor" and "opinion columnist"), some reliable sources, which were used in support of journalist, did use the term "writer" to describe Ngo. To quote Springree, "Some of the sources say he's a writer or author (both true and neither conflict with journalist*)."
  
  [*I had argued the fact they then did not use journalist outright was telling though; if journalist is not considered a contentious label, why a significant number of sources do not use it? This is where MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE comes into focus: sources consider other labels to be better representative of Ngo's notability than journalist, and a significant number of sources use labels that I believe even Springree agreed are in fact in conflict with journalist, e.g. activist or provocateur.]
  
  Ultimately, what matters is not "us" but reliable sources. If they call Ngo or whoever a writer, an activist, or whatever, that is what we do. If there is disagreement among sources, we do not use a label, even if it may not be considered contentious (it is apparently considered contentious not only by us but by reputable news organizations), as an uncontested fact; we write a sentence contextualizing this and report the various significant viewpoints and labels used. Davide King (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Davide King, to the extent that I understand your reasoning, it only confirms my sense that the close was a fudge and that there is little likelihood of the reader understanding why we have written this as we have (ie understanding that by placing 'journalist' in the second sentence, we are saying that the descriptor is disputed and that by putting 'author' in pole position, we actually mean 'person who mainly writes disputed journalism' - rather than the ordinary meaning of someone who creates books, especially fiction). I think that uninvolved users are often best placed to assess whether a close reflects the balance of discussion, but in this instance the close does not even pretend to answer the binary question asked (journalist or not), but rather arrives at a novel solution never even framed in the discussion.

  Of course I accept that RS are the ultimate arbiters here and I was persuaded in the previous RfC that sufficient prominent RS used the term 'journalist'. I argued in addition that 'journalist' is a description of an area of activity, not a moral or quality endorsement. People who write for bigoted sources are usually also described thus, here and in the real world. People who argued against often implied that what Ngo did was so far from journalism that it besmirched the word itself. I accept that some sources seem extremely reluctant to use the term 'journalist', sometimes they come up with other descriptions, (none, including 'author' I believe, was anywhere near as common as 'journalist' ). Sometimes sources employ novel means to avoid a job-noun, such as describing what he mainly does (create contentious video news reports), rather than what he is as a job-noun. Had such a suggestion been framed at the RfC, I might well have been able to support it.

  If we and RS acknowledge that someone creates film scores, but for some reason significant sources avoid 'composer', it would very easy for us to record what that person does and avoid any job-noun. There may be other ways out of this impasse, but saying that Ngo is a 'journalist', but doing so almost as an afterthought after 3 other job-nouns, despite it being acknowledged that his 'news videos' are his primary claim to notability/notoriety, seems the worst of all possible worlds to me - assuming the reader will understand why we have broken the convention of 'main job first' compounds that.

  I won't reply further, since I have made my feelings clear about what I consider to be an invalid - albeit good faith - close. Pincrete (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Pincrete: FWIW, I don't think author and social media influencer should be in pole position. I believe MOS:FIRSTBIO point 5 would have us put something else in pole position. What brought him to notability, i.e the main reason for his notability, his activism is unlikely to be agreed to though. The rest of the first sentence makes sence "who is known for covering and video-recording demonstrators." in line with MOS:FIRSTBIO. TarnishedPath^talk 23:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  [Edited to add] The closure also stated: "Among the most interesting pieces of evidence submitted was a table with sources mentioned in this discussion (see Discussion section). Not only editors were unable to agree if the table presented consensus for mentioning the label 'journalist', but also it is a bit of a stretch calling the slight majority of sources 'consensus to call him journalist'. If I were to summarise the discussion based on sources alone, it would have been a no-consensus closure."
  
  This cannot be dismissed as a defect of form like MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, as other users beyond TarnishedPath and I clearly disagreed with sources used to support the claim. This position would entail support for the "Yes in the lead [as there is a significant number of sources using the label] but not in the first sentence [as there is a significant number of sources not using the label, and when going through source analysis the result is more of a 'No consensus']." So even if there may be a defect of form in regards to the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE (it is not my fault if this argument was so convincing but ignored :D), the source analysis would get us to the same result and support the same closure's position that also gives us a clear path forward to improve the article and end this diatribe. Davide King (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  If it had been a no consensus closure, then the status-quo would have been retained. And maybe, just maybe, the reason your argument was ignored by the majority of editors is because it wasn't a compelling argument to begin with, except to of course the closer, and no, that is not your fault. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Or perhaps many of them just !commented and were done with, or that it was used as an argument when there have been many other !comments already so it did not persuaded (I count at least one or two who !commented citing me, so my argument was not ignored and was not not compelling as you wrote). Instead, I find the "!yes [status quo] per sources" arguments not compelling to begin with, to quote you, when the source analysis, which included unreliable ones in support, is closer to "No consensus", so it should not be stated as fact but be discussed in a proper sentence in the lead, as the closure concluded.
  
  It was not a !vote, it was about the arguments, and the "Yes" side basically reduced themselves to "!Yes per sources", asked us to prove a negative ("Show us a source explicitily saying he isn't a journalist!", completely missing the point and ignoring the rest, apart from one or two who engaged with us), etc. To quote Loki, "it's a guideline so it should be applied here, and nobody ever answered the objections based on it. And it's ultimately the closer's job to evaluate argument quality, not just argument quantity."
  
  So perhaps it was really the lack of good arguments in support of the label as fact, not errors on the part of the closure, or that "argument was ignored by the majority of editors [Aquillion just debunked this here] ... because it wasn't a compelling argument to begin with." Davide King (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think we can both agree we were involved, so we each have our own opinions about the closure. In other words, we'll have to agree to disagree. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @LokiTheLiar, @Grayfell, @Chess, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Isaidnoway, @Dorsetonian, @Burrobert, @TFD, @Peter Gulutzan, @Aquillion, @Spy-cicle, @HAL333, @FormalDude, @JzG, @Generalrelative, @DontKnowWhyIBother, @Objective3000, @Neutrality, @Dlthewave, @Crossroads, @-sche, @Ortizesp, @Darknipples, @Caeciliusinhorto-public, @Caeciliusinhorto, @Alpha3031, @PackMecEng, @Jweiss11, @ScottishFinnishRadish, @JPxG, @Sceptre, @BonaparteIII, @Binksternet, @Thriley, @Pincrete, @Wehwalt, @starship.paint and @Willbb234 as you were involved in the RfC. TarnishedPath^talk 01:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

After reading Szmenderowiecki's defense of their close on their talk page, I think their defense of their close is reasonable. It's not the typical sort of vote-count close but that's explicitly not required or even formally encouraged of a closer. It's totally reasonable to say "some people argued this, it seems to me like a strong point, and nobody answered it" in a close. Loki (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't reasonable to claim a significant aspect of the closing can be based on 1 person out of 45 argued a point. Also, as I noted above, the MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE argument kind of falls flat when point #4 suggests the opening sentence should mention significant positions. Positions like say, journalism. This isn't a place to relitigate the actual RfC. It's a place to argue if the closing reasonably summarized the discussion. It hardly seems reasonable that someone who opposed calling Ngo a journalist would then argue they actually meant just don't call him that in the first sentence (but the second sentence is fine). Springee (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't 1 person out of 45 and more importantly was a policy that no one addressed. Please refer to WP:SUPV which states:

"It should be noted that consensus discussions (including XfDs and RfCs) are not really polls. For example, if an XfD discussion has more "keeps" than "deletes" but the "deletes" are grounded in policy and the "keeps" are of the WP:ILIKEIT variety (or conversely if the deletes say WP:ITSCRUFT and the "keeps" are grounded in policy), it's not a "supervote" to close in accordance with a significant minority opinion. (See also WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus.)" TarnishedPath^talk 02:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 to what Loki has said. I personally disagree with the close, but it was very thoughtfully constructed and well reasoned on the basis of policy. I commend Szmenderowiecki for stepping up to take on this difficult task! Generalrelative (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it couldn't have been easy to wade through all of that. TarnishedPath^talk 02:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

The best input in a close review is that of uninvolved editors. Pinging a bunch of people who already hold opinions on the RFC question isn't likely to be very constructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Imho, strike the part in the close about "in the first sentence". Next time, this RfC should have specific proposed wording of the lede paragraph. Workshop it for a week and rerun with detailed options. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen RfCs with too many options aren't very good RfCs in general. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: I meant along the lines of exact wording. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Chess While I agree that would have been a better thing to do from the start, that's not what we actually did, and I don't see any compelling reason to completely re-run the RFC. Loki (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Responding to ping, I must say it never occurred to me that any decision about Ngo's primary occupation would go anywhere other than opening sentence, as it always does, and as it was before the RfC. Nor that a 'close' would decide a question neither asked in the RfC nor really broached in the ensuing discussion. What we have arrived at is distinctly 'fudging' NPOV by effectively saying he's an author, he's an influencer. BTW we have to say he's a journalist, but we'll tuck it away somewhere later, without explanation or context. AFAIK Ngo does very little writing except for journalistic/news commentary and he is primarily known for video, rather than printed text - so where does 'author' come from, which ordinarily means books? Do any sources describe his primary occupation thus? This is the worst of all worlds IMO. I believe there is prior agreement to call him a 'right-wing journalist' and the sentences following his basic biog info detail quite well why he is controversial and much-criticised, (his credibility and accuracy have been questioned, he is accused of producing misleading and selective content - sometimes of being a provocateur). This is the correct way to deal with his bias and his controversial methods and 'product', not by 'holding our noses' when describing his profession, or assuming that no one reads beyond the first sentence. I'm UK and only know Ngo as a result of WP, but from what I have read of him, he's loathsomely unprincipled and his 'product' is despicably 'loaded', but I don't see any reason for deviating from normal practice of describing his main profession (area of activity) in the opening sentence - certainly not as a way of 'avoiding the issue' of a difficult RfC, which appears to have happened here. The close should be reconsidered IMO, if the recent RfC failed to reach an agreement to exclude the term journalist from the opening sentence, then the default position arising from the previous RfC, is to include it as his main profession in the opening sentence. Pincrete (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the notification. I am flabbergasted at the time and energy this is taking so don't have much enthusiasm for prolonging it; my view on the question is recorded on the original RfC so I won't repeat it here; what I might say is that the straightforward-looking question appears to have had different meaning to different people: "Should we describe Andy Ngo as a journalist in the lede?" does not say "should we include journalist in the lede?" and so leaves it uncertain whether this excludes or includes the possibility of "<qualified>-journalist" and/or "journalist and <other>". If people were answering different questions, there's no way this can have reached any kind of meaningful consensus. I think the options are: (a) run it again, with a more precise question/set of options, or (b) because this is taking way to much time and energy, stop asking How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. Dorsetonian (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I, for one, support the option where there is no need for discussion on this for at least approximately 6 months. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Pinged: Yeah, that's a problematic RfC close. We should avoid describing the person in the first sentence using terms that are contentious, which was shown here. Looks like to me the closer basically looked at a couple of editors who invoked MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE and used the term contentious in their arguments, (C&C, DK). I don't know what the solution is here, but the idea that author (in the first sentence now) is what Ngo is best known as, and more prevalent in sources than journalist, is a ridiculous conclusion to that RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  There was definitely a lot of discussion at the RFC about whether journalist was contentious or not, how so, why, etc etc.

  What seems to be the issue is that there wasn't a lot of discussion of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE specifically. And, I agree that there wasn't, and this definitely makes me feel less good about this close than a lot of other closes I've seen. But, there was some discussion, it's a guideline so it should be applied here, and nobody ever answered the objections based on it. And it's ultimately the closer's job to evaluate argument quality, not just argument quantity. Loki (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. His primary occupation is right-wing grifter, and that should definitely be in the lede. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Now this description I would consider a contentious term. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Multiple users did discuss the inappropriateness of the first sentence specifically. In addition to TarnishedPath (who mentioned it above), Coffeeandcrumbs also objected to it being in the first sentence specifically and referenced MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE, while Davide King argued specifically that this is sufficient for me to consider the label a subjective or contentious term (thus, violating MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE) in the discussion (the original poster here even replied to them, so they can't say they didn't get a chance to argue against moving it out of the first sentence.) More generally, large numbers of the other contributors mentioned WP:DUE and the problems with prominently presenting a label that the sources clearly treat as contested in the article voice as if it is uncontested as a concern. Due weight is partially a matter of placement and, as multiple people in the discussion pointed out, content being uncontested is particularly important for the first sentence; it is therefore reasonable for a closer to interpret the arguments as not strong enough to remove the descriptor entirely, but strong enough to reduce its prominence, especially since multiple people did discuss the inappropriateness of it being in the first sentence specifically. I also think that this objection would be more reasonable if it had come from someone who had pushed for removal rather than retention - your argument is essentially that it was unreasonable of the closer to interpret arguments for complete removal of a piece of text as also supporting reducing its prominence; but if that's the case then it should be easy to find people who wanted it removed and who take the position of "no, that's not what I meant, if we're not removing it entirely it should stay in the first sentence." Just looking at the discussion here, it's clear from who has weighed in and what they said that the closer was correct in interpreting arguments along the lines of "there are problems with this text, therefore we should remove it entirely" as also supporting reducing its prominence if the evidence they presented and the consensus behind them was strong enough to do something but not sufficient for complete removal. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Can you provide some links or time stamps so the posts you feel support the not first sentence claim can be verified? Springee (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Good close. Whether or not a word is contentious is context sensitive. Consider the word "dictator". In most contexts, it would be consider a contentious word. However, we find it in the first sentence of Adolf Hitler. Suddenly, the word is not contentious because obviously he was dictator and we would have a hard time finding a reliable source to say otherwise. The reverse is also true. The word "journalist" is typically not contentious. Apply it to Andy Ngo and suddenly it is. That is not only my opinion. That is the opinion of several reliable sources that disagree on its application. The closer correctly saw the strength of my argument and properly closed the RfC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Disagreeing on its application doesn't make it contentious, it would be subjective, as in a difference of opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  But contentious means that there is a difference of opinion or some other disagreement, that is a distinction without meaning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Would the close be unproblematic if it used the latter word instead of the former? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Good close. While I was originally against removing "journalist" from the opening, I can agree that this is not the reason why Ngo became notable. There are sources that describe him as such, and some that don't. While I empathize with the confusion and frustration on that point, I feel the closer's logic is sound. I tend to disagree with this review, because while it's intent may be in good faith the reason for it is unclear, other than a quality VS quantity argument, which seems to forget WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:CCC. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• I would have to agree with Springee here regarding the neccesity for a close review here as Springee makes sound points regarding the consideration of FIRSTSENTENCE in the close.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
• endorse I think the consensus for not having the title in the first sentence was weak, but it was certainly discussed and seems like a reasonable way forward given the relevant policies. I don't know that I'd have been comfortable making that reading, but it's within discretion IMO. The rest, as others have said, seems great. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  That BIOFIRST was discussed is undermined by the fact that editors were trying to use it to say "journalist" couldn't be used at all in the lead. That clearly was refuted as even the closing said the second sentence was OK. There is also the issue that it's not the closer's position to pick what they feel is a compromise from a consensus that wasn't discussed. "Not in the first sentence but OK in the lead" was not an option that was discussed in any significant way and thus shouldn't have been on the table. The compromise close in this case would be "no-consensus". Springee (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• The recent change to the article's short description illustrates the problem with this close. It's clear from the RfC discussion and closing that "journalist" is the most common description for Ngo (with the understanding that it usually has a qualifier like "right wing"). The short description was changed from journalist to "personality" then "influencer", neither of which has consensus nor represents the most widely used descriptors. The justification was that if "journalist" isn't allowed in the opening sentence then it can't be used in the short description. Thus the questionable closing where 3 editors referenced a MOS guideline in a questionable way we now have a claim of consensus between 45 editors that the best, single descriptor is "influencer" rather than "journalist"? This part of the closing doesn't reflect consensus and should be reverted. Springee (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree the short description was not part of the RfC, and should be reverted back to the status-quo. And frankly if the logic behind the RfC closure is that "journalist" is a contentious term, then the replacement with "author" is a contentious term as well because sources disagree on that descriptor too, and "author" certainly doesn't meet the guideline of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE for a noteworthy position. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, Andy Ngo is a journalist and this fact belongs in the first sentence of the lead. Everyone is entitled to their opinion about whether on not he is a crappy journalist, and I encourage everyone to write their thoughts about that on a blog, or on social media, if they so choose. That we are seriously considering whether on not a neutral occupational descriptor like "journalist" is a contentious label is a testament how discussion and curation of contentious topics and contentious figures has been compromised here on Wikipedia by political bias. Many editors are intent to infuse neutral occupational descriptors with moral and political considerations, over which a subject must clear in order to qualify. That we have an administrator stating in this discussion "his primary occupation is right-wing grifter" is emblematic of how badly this project in failing to deliver on its core mission in many topic areas. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

  What would you say made Andy Ngo notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article in the first place? DN (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  Like-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I understand it, JzG resigned as a sysop some time ago. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would have preferred a more specific term, but that is out of scope, and I would rather the discussion had been read more narrowly. I'll try to avoid saying anything further. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Without rehashing the merits of the RFC in general, I do feel like it is a bit of a supervote to give a novel answer that was largely not discussed. Since the location of the label was not covered in any depth in the discussion it is hard to agree with that part of the close, the close even stated Oddly, almost all editors focused on the first sentence only even though the RfC question asked about the lead as a whole. Given that I would strike the part about the first sentence and have it go back to it's long standing position. PackMecEng (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2023 (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.

The futility of "close review"

I've observed that, once an RfC is closes and the close is elevated to status quo, it's extremely rare that an immediate rehash of the same mixed poll is going to find strong enough new consensus to overturn the close. Not that the comments aren't earnest and thougthful. But "close review" is a structurally flawed and ineffective procedure. Just sayin'. Is this really worth it? SPECIFICO talk 11:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This is often the problem with close reviews. Rather than focus on if the close was proper, they often devolve into relitigating the case. In this case the focus should be if there was sufficient discussion in the RfC to declare a decision on where the consensus material can be in the lead. If there isn't then at least that part of the close was improper as it doesn't summarize the discussion. Springee (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to echo those comments. In addition, when the only thing that's clear is that it's a borderline issue, surely that's the point where we have to allow the closer a bit of discretion. If it's not a clear-cut "bad close" then it's probably a good close, or at least a "good enough for now" close. After all, consensus can change so no decision is set in stone forever. WaggersTALK 14:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the comments about close reviews. I will comment that the most active 'close review' process is Deletion Review, and at DRV there is a rule that "DRV is not AFD round 2". AN should not be RFC round 2. DRV is not perfect, but we try to remember that DRV is not AFD round 2. I am not sure how AN close review of RFCs should be improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

But I will that most close reviews at AN are RFC round 2, in that they usually involve the participants saying how they would have closed the RFC. I think that they seldom focus on whether the close was a reasonable exercise of judgment by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

One of the recent RFC close reviews was structured with involved / uninvolved sections, which seemed to help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Springee (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Especially if involved editors only post in the involved section. Maybe something like:
= New section header =
[Basis for challenge]
== Involved section ==
== Uninvolved section ==
== Discussion ==
There really is very little documentation for RFC reviews.-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I like that. It would be good to emphasize that this isn't supposed to be RfC2.0. Instead the arguments should focus on why the closing didn't reflect consensus of the discussion. Springee (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Does involved editors mean those who took part in the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's how I would interpret it but I could see someone arguing that "involved" usually refers to the topic/article etc. Perhaps "Involved in RfC"/"Uninvolved in RfC" or similar would make it clearer? Springee (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

+1. I hope "Uninvolved" and "Involved" subheadings become standard for AN close reviews. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what path forward is for this... the extended arguments between involved editors here simply obfuscates the entire issue. Also, it was really poor that everyone was pinged about this because it's going to choke out outside comment. That's a shame, because I feel like the point I raised has not been adequately addressed and others have also expressed concerns with how WP:CONTENTIOUS was applied. At this stage it seems more trouble than it's worth. Nemov (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  The path forward is for people to WP:DROPTHESTICK 23.246.110.58 (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely. More generally we could perhaps look at a proposal to separate RfC close reviews to a separate noticeboard where review requests have a defined structure, like the one @ActivelyDisinterested suggested above. I guess the counter-argument is that we need to avoid the proliferation of admin noticeboards. WaggersTALK 10:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  There's no reason the format can't be used here, an RFC review board hasn't garnered much approval in the past. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  ActivelyDisinterested Well, I can't confirm your opinion.

  In 2017, there was a discussion with some encouragement to have one but clearly outside the scope of the closer of the review to decide about that.

  I am not able to find any other discussion that specifically addressed the issue of a separate board. You can automatically implement the proposed division when you launch a closure review (involved/uninvolved/discussion). Yes, AN will become a pretty empty space at this stage but maybe this is the whole point? Admins will get the news they need (backlog drives, ECP pages, arb decisions, news from Wikimedia Foundation) with relatively little distraction (most of reports to AN are about; users will still be able to attend dramaboards at their own pleasure (ANI, AE, CLRV/RFCRV, whatever).

  You can even theoretically try to integrate this into WP:CR, but I'm not sure about the technical aspects.

  But I suggest that WP:VPIL is the correct venue to prepare for a discussion that may launch such a board. You need to give a good general idea of how this is implemented and why this is an issue at all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  You misunderstand I'm not against a separate board for RFC reviews, that's just the general vibe I've got from general discussions. Also I have no intention to take anywhere, it's just part of the current discussion. Feel free to take it up if you think it would help AN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Nemov:, I'm not sure I see what you're getting at, given that you were involved in the RfC yourself and contributed to the close review prior to anyone being pinged. TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The closer missed the fact that most respondents thought that the term journalist had to be qualified by "right-wing" or "conservative," since few if any reliable sources refer to him as a journalist without qualification. The qualification is required because he does not meet the usual definition of a journalist, which is a professional who strives to report the news accurately.

As used by mainstream media, it's an oxymoron: "a figure of speech that juxtaposes concepts with opposite meanings within a word or in a phrase that is a self-contradiction." If the news media for example said that Ngo "presented alternative facts," we should not interpret that as he "presented facts."

TFD (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In some 'perfect' world where 'pure neutrality' reigns, perhaps conservative/liberal/any other political, economic or national leaning would be an oxymoron. In the real world most journalists work most of their lives, to a greater or lesser extent working for news sources that reflect the prejudices, prorities and positions of the source and its readership, many of which are on a L-R spectrum. 'Conservative journalist' is no more inherently oxymoronic than "conservative judge', it describes a tendency. Ngo is of course more overtly R-wing than most journalists. Pincrete (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

That's just spin. Mainstream media don't refer to themselves and other journalists as right-wing, left-wing or whatever. Clearly they are distancing themselves from him. They don't think the quality of his work meets their professional standards.

Editors should be able to identify irony when they see it. TFD (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes when controversial close reviews come to AN, I set up "involved" and "uninvolved" sections before things get out of hand. That's usually gone pretty well, and I've been thanked for it from people involved on both sides of the debate. Perhaps that should become standard procedure. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

+1. I agree completely. I hope this becomes standard for AN close reviews. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 Pretty sure you setup the one I was remembering, it helped immensely with keeping things orderly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Is that to give more or less weight to the arguments of those involved? PackMecEng (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Less, in my opinion. With the idea being that RFC participants are most likely to opine the same way they opined in the original RFC, and that a close review should give more weight to a fresh and less biased/unbiased set of editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We would not expect everyone in a close review to go over every vote. So why would we discount the people that know the subject best? Plus that is not something we do anywhere else. It is always by strength of arguments not if they have commented elsewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In the RFC review I saw it used it, it's main effect was to stop involved editors bickering with each other in the replies of uninvolved editors (as they had a whole section of their own to bicker with each other). I would hope, as I was someone of the involved editors, that it wasn't used to devalue arguments. I would disagree that subject knowledge is necessary in any review though, as only the policy based nature of the close is up for review. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer to see out guides on bludeoning followed to solve that. But that is a fair point on subject knowledge. PackMecEng (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO its actually preferable that the closer not be knowledgeable about the subject, that just begs the question of why they would close rather than contribute to the discussion (which a closer does no do). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to put a related comment here to the the "no-consensus" close above. The above closing (which I'm not disputing) illustrates one of the problems I've seen many times with questionable RfC closings. Generically have a supervote/bad close where what could be viewed as a no-con is closed as consensus for something questionable. So we open a close review. I would like to think we need a consensus to keep a questionable close. Instead all we need to keep a bad close is enough editors who are OK with the result to prevent a consensus to overturn. It would probably be better to require consensus to keep a contested close. If nothing else that means a mildly bad decision doesn't stand. In effect the question should change from "should the close be overturned" to "should the close stand". Springee (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Drop it. The close review has closed. TarnishedPath^talk 05:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Also, I really hope the problems with requiring a second close with reversed consensus on every close should be blatantly obvious. Loki (talk) 07:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is it? Please explain why that is better than letting a close stand without consensus? Springee (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Because nobody could ever close things. We'd be arguing about anything that didn't have WP:SNOW levels of consensus forever, since anyone who disliked a close could come here and have presumption to overturn it.

  But that doesn't change any opinions on the original page, who will presumably arrive at the same conclusion, get it overturned again, and on and on and on... Loki (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  TP, please AGF. Springee (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't intending on doing otherwise mate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  A problem with Springee's proposal is that it would give a strong disincentive to closing a contentious RFC, since the editor would likely then face a guilty-until-proven-innocent accusation of having made a bad closure. Normally in an appeal process or accusation of having done something wrong, the burden of proof is on the person making the appeal or the accusation. NightHeron (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. The suggested reverse onus is not what we should be looking to go to for a model. TarnishedPath^talk 10:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  In almost any other aspect of Wikipedia a nocon results on reversing the change. This is the one place where reversals are locked in when there is a no consensus. If the community isn't willing to stand behind a closing then we should revert it. That doesn't mean it couldn't be reclosed just that the original closing was poor. Springee (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's your opinion that the closing was poor. There's no consensus on that. TarnishedPath^talk 11:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  That there was no consensus the closing was good is obvious. If the closing doesn't have consensus that means we can't say it did follow the process (that would take a consensus to keep). Springee (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Drop it. The close review has closed. TarnishedPath^talk 12:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just to be clear the no consensus was because I decided not enough uninvolved editors participated in the review relative to the number who participated in the original discussion. But there was a "rough" consensus that the close was appropriate and if the standard was what you propose I wouldn't have closed it at all. I'd likely have left some kind of comment similar to what I do when relisting some AfDs along the lines of "A consensus appears to be forming for X, relisting in order to get more editor feedback". Barkeep49 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's always a fair way to close things. If the closer of the original RfC had raised the first sentence question then let people comment we wouldn't be here. Springee (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  You suggested that another user drop it above. I agree, you as well. Nemov (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee: "[…]a nocon results on reversing the change." Let’s reword this a bit: “When considering a proposal to change something that resulted from a long process over time, a nocon results in no change.” When an edit that changes the stable version of an article is disputed, the onus is on the editor who wants the change. When an editor wants to change the closure of an RFC (usually the result of about a month of discussions), the onus is on that editor. In both cases, as Springee put it, a nocon results in no change. There’s no inconsistency here. NightHeron (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Basically though in this case the RfC closing did result in a change so that is why I think a nocon on the closing should revert the close thus resulting in no change with the opening for a new RfC closing. Springee (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  An RFC, whatever its outcome was, is not like a bold edit by one editor. It involves a serious time commitment by several editors over about a month. Reversing the closure should not be the default option if the appeal has nocon. NightHeron (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  But would not using that argument ("a nocon results on reversing the change") means journalist must be gone anyway (from the first sentence at the very least) because there were multiple RfC resulting in "No consensus", so there is no longer a consensus to "Keep" it in the lead? Ironically, the closure you wish to reverse established a consensus for journalist to be in the lead, just not as an uncontested fact or in the first sentence. Basically, either way, it would results in the new status quo. Davide King (talk) 14:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, that would be a misunderstanding of what I've said. If the RfC closing doesn't get consensus then we should revert the closing, treat it as if the closing hasn't happened. That doesn't mean we do something to the article. If the article was changed due to the closing then yes, it would be reverted. In the case of a NOCON RfC then we do what we always do, we don't act on the RfC. In this case there was a first RfC that said, "consensus to include". I don't think that RfC was challenged. The next RfC reached a NOCON result and thus wouldn't change status quo. Here we have a strange case of a closing that supported the original RfC yet added a stipulation that was not widely or clearly discussed. That part of the closing (and the whole closing if one says you take all or nothing) was found to not have "good close" consensus. It wouldn't result in a new status quo, it would result in a return to the unclosed RfC. Springee (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Alexandra Lugaro

The article on Alexandra Lugaro about her lawsuit is not correct ,i have been trying to correct it only to have been blocked by another user of wikipedia i also have facts to back up what i am disputing. Tmmusgrove (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Tmmusgrove, you are going about this the wrong way, and shouting in all caps on your talk page is not the the best way to proceed. Make your case calmly and rationally at Talk:Alexandra Lúgaro, bringing forth reliable sources that verify the content you are trying to change. Cullen328 (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information on how to go about edits on wikipedia . Tmmusgrove (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Need a separate admin for an RFC closure

On the article List of major terrorist incidents we currently have an RFC on the talk page about should the recent Hamas attacks be added and do they meet the article's inclusion criteria of 1) reliably sourced as a terrorist incident, 2) major, 3) by a violent non-state actor. This has been running over a week now and the discussion seems to be quieting a bit. It may be coming to a time where a non-involved administrator should take a look at it with a view towards a closure one way or another. There has been some emotions in the discussion, but it's been very civilized given the topic, but there is contention in there. Cheers. Canterbury Tail talk 13:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You may want to post about this at WP:ANRFC if you haven't already. That is the usual spot to request closures. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

SSSniperwolf

(I originally posted this in the wrong admin noticeboard.)
This is pretty much a WP:BFDI-ish problem. A group of users have attempted to game the system for what is basically unsuccessfully attempting to get a non-notable internet personality called SSSniperwolf on Wikipedia.

So far, there have been 5 AfD nominations for articles about her:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperWolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sssniperwolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperwolf (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSSniperWolf (5th nomination)

Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is no admin intervention, this could become a sitewide problem. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: Sorry for pestering but the ANI rule about notifying reported users also applies here. CityOfSilver 01:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for informing me. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The notified users are:

User:Zunairah2211

User:Das osmnezz

User:Keke Zoë

(I did not notify them, they just happened to be informed of the AfDs on their talk pages at the time they were happening.) Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 01:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: I notified all three of this discussion. Would you please review the pink and red box at the top of this page so you'll know next time? CityOfSilver 02:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my involvement in the last 2 of the 5 AFDs. I was adamant that sources like [82], [83], and [84] as well as her tens of millions of subscribers made her notable but I should have realized that I needed more in-depth sources to actually meet criteria so I apologize for that. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 10:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

nah. five tries aren't bfdi level. you'd need 50 tries for that. ltbdl (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl Isn't this still somewhat of an ultra problem that could bite back if no one does anything to slow this down? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 10:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The person in question (SSSniperWolf) just doxxed comedy YouTuber jacksfilms. I could see several people making accounts for the sake of creating a page about her despite not being notable. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 10:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

what do you suggest we do? ltbdl (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Or the alternative is that she is an actual notable person. There are serval articles by sources listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources talking about participation in game launch events with other celebrities such as Arsenal football player. 1keyhole (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The article itself for SSSniperwolf has been SALTed, and was done a month ago. I'm not sure what other actions need to be taken at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone could add a table row about her at the barely sourced trash pile List of YouTubers and create-protect the improperly capitalised variants of the article title. Folly Mox (talk) 11:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, as a complete outsider SSSniperWolf looks like a borderline case, there's a strong argument that the article already passed GNG. There's a ton of coverage online surrounding her, even if it's the doxxing case. I find Wikipedia always tries to safeguard against influencers whether they get coverage or not. Ortizesp (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, at the time the 5 AfD discussions were happening, she literally had little to no significant coverage from reliable sources. If you really want SSSniperWolf on here, just start a draft. It may or may not be accepted, only God knows. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

You might not realise this, but Ortizesp is an exceptionally experienced editor, with over 140,000 controbutions and the autopatrolled flag. I don't think they need any advice on what to do if they think an article is lacking. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh. My apologies @Ortizesp. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 11:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Ortizesp, unlike BFDI I've heard of SSSniperwolf before. Probably through YT suggestions. SVG.com (SVG.com), MSN, Forbes, dotesports (Dotesports), Hindustan Times, HITC (HITC), HotNewHipHop (HotNewHipHop), GameRant (GameRant) - how much more is needed? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

five more sources that are listed on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

Gamer Informer

VentureBeat

AV Club

Polygon 1keyhole (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• As I understand the online situation with this person, I think we need to take the same route as we have with Chris Chan, which is to avoid article creation and mention of them, because there's just far too much internet drama from unreliable sources (even if there are a handful of some in Alexis' list above - but given this being a BLP, we should expect far higher quality). --Masem (t) 17:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Basically, just banning all sitewide mentions of her? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 17:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, it might be too soon to ban mentions of her yet, the doxxing incident got covered by Insider and Forbes, both of which are well-known sources. I would wait at least a week or two before doing anything at this point, but what do I know anyways? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 17:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  The Forbes ref isn't a reliable source (written by a "senior contributor", see WP:Forbes): Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons. Schazjmd (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  Schazjmd, how about Monsters and Critics? https://www.monstersandcritics.com/celebrity/sssniperwolf-canceled-youtuber-has-been-accused-of-transphobia-and-racism/ from 2020. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  All due respect, but did you actually read this drivel? I only had to make it to the second word of the headline to rule it out for use in any WP article, much less a BLP. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  The title of the article reads like clickbait sensationalist garbage, to be fair. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 19:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  For what is going on with these people, I would rather see coverage in strong RSes before we have articles about them. I'm talking at the level of NYTimes, WashPost, BBC, etc. There's a lot of mid-quality coverage of this but we're opening a really bad door if we don't have pristine sources at the start. Masem (t) 19:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've created Wikipedia:Sssniperwolf sources overview to analyze the sources, hopefully others will contribute to this. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  that probably shouldn't be in wikipedia space. ltbdl (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Project space should be fine, it's the same place AFD discussions and essays and whatnot go. I guess userspace might work too but if it's clearly intended to be edited by others as well arguably WPspace could be better. As an aside, it's a little weird, and I've not really noticed this before, that {{SAT}} doesn't have a column for "secondary" (whereas the ORGCRIT one does). Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, I forgot about that. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 19:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Regex salted via MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. MER-C 18:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that a chunk of the controversy, along with some dodgy sourcing, has found its way to jacksfilms#Conflict with SSSniperWolf (2022–present).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

And SSSniperWolf (created before the title blacklist) redirects there. MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sssniperwolf has garnered some new reliable coverage today. Especially with her controversy with JacksFilms. YouTube has temporarily demonetized her YouTube channel and it was covered by publications such as Time Magazine, NBC News, and Forbes Staff. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  "The Forbes ref isn't a reliable source (written by a "senior contributor", see WP:Forbes): Forbes.com contributor articles should never be used for third-party claims about living persons."

  - Courtesy of @Schazjmd

  Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: The Forbes article in question was written by Antonio Pequeño IV, who is credited as "Forbes Staff", not "Forbes Senior Contributor". Per WP:Forbes, "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes articles written by Forbes staff and not Senior Contributors or Contributors are reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles" Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:20, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464 Oh, I got confused with the one what was written by a contributor. Sorry. Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: You're good. I wanted to include three NEW sources - which were Forbes, Time Magazine, and NBC News. All of these articles were posted today on October 20, 2023. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartly believe that we should wait a least a few days at this point. The articles mentioned here by @Yoshiman6464 significantly cover her, are independent, and reliable. We're kinda off to an ok start. — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 14:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Note that I have opened a RfD on SSSniperWolf, which is now a redirect. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Want to suggest dropping the regex SALT to ECP, on the premise that protection is a reactive measure to ongoing disruption, not a preemptive measure. If we need to reinstate protection, that can always be done. Most established editors are going to see the deletion log and take extreme care to not bring up the previous problems that caused the title to be deleted. Awesome Aasim 02:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi colleagues--can someone have a look at User_talk:Umar2z, please? Drmies (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies: My impression is that this is a member of WP:UPE ring that should remain blocked. YMMV.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not disagree, Deepfriedokra. This stuff is really getting out of hand, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Meh.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Lotta days recently, seems there's two tiers of editors here - people getting paid for it, and people spending a disproportionate amount of time and effort making the first group's jobs a few percentage points harder. —Cryptic 04:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's an appeal of a checkuser block, to save any other peons the trouble of looking. —Cryptic 04:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

118.106.227.40 Is removing a lot of content

Hello there, I'm new here so I hope this is the right place to share this concern. The IP 118.106.227.40 has been removing lots of content and contributions in several different locations. Perhaps you could verify this? I hope this is the right place to report :).

Special:Contributions/118.106.227.40

Above is a link to the IP's activities.

Thank you for your time. Homerethegreat (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Homerethegreat (Non-administrator comment) You need to remember to notify the editor that an ANB discussion involving them is in progress. Even if they are an IP. I went ahead and sent the notification right now. Awesome Aasim 12:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The OP themself seems to be engaged in quite some partisan editing. See this, this and this.VR _talk 16:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 21#IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications

Additional uninvolved eyes on this discussion may be helpful; thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus overrules policy? Secretlondon (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:LOCALCON, it generally shouldn't. BilledMammal (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's complicated. For starters WP:Notability is a Guideline not a policy, which means occasional exceptions may apply. For this reason, local discussions may sometimes determine that the overall consensus does not apply in a specific case. The level of agreement needs to be quite strong in those cases, but remember there needs to be an active consensus for actions other than keep the usual default in WP:NOCON cases so this can get quite messy.

To expand further, if good-faith users with a solid understanding of policy and guidelines are justifying deviation from our usual practice by reference to the principles that underlie the project and through appeal to policy and WP:IAR is policy the closer can't simply ignore them. Of course if it's people making ILIKEIT arguments or similar that demonstrate lack of familiarity with our principles (or trolling/sock stuff) then yes those can (and should be) discounted.

Sometimes we'll end up in a situation where proponents of an action like redirection/deletion are not able to convince enough knowledgeable good-faith editors to form a consensus for that action, but those who propose keeping in a departure from the usual practice are also not able to form the strong consensus needed for an outright keep so the discussion ends with no consensus.

All this complexity is why closers need to exercise solid discretion and judgement.

I've written this from a general informational perspective, I have not reviewed the specific case that prompted this inquiry and have no intention of commenting on it. However I hope you'll keep this in mind during these discussions going forward. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Random websites can determine you're an admin

Public service announcement: any website you visit can determine you are an administrator the username of administrators on Wikipedia. I'm not going to explain publicly how I did that and neither should you, but you can find a poorly optimized but mostly functional proof of concept in phab:T147995#9268645. Note that this task is restricted so you may not be able to view it. If you really need access perhaps @MatmaRex can help.
If you find this concerning, disable third-party cookies in your browser or use separate browsers for Wikipedia and the rest of your browsing needs. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it easier to just use the user rights log? Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 18:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Davest3r08, you need to know someone's username for that. Perhaps you misunderstand, do you know https://www.WhatIsMyIp.com ? It shows your IP, and whoever owns whatismyip.com can log that information or send it to whoever they like. The exploit in question here allows a site to do the same thing, except instead of your IP they can figure out whether or not you're an administrator here. To put it more bluntly, imagine this as an ad: "Hot singles in your area are looking for a Wikipedia administrator", which only Wikipedia admins would see. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I am having difficulty understanding why a website that tells its users whether or not a specific Wikipedia editor is or is not a Wikipedia administrator is a problem in any way. Alexis Jazz, please explain your concern more clearly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't see the thing, but based on what they're saying: no. He is not saying that a random website can tell that "Cullen328" is an administrator. He's saying a random website can tell that you, the person using the computer and visiting the website, are Wikipedia administrator Cullen328. I imagine it's something to do with session cookies but I'm not going to elaborate further. jp×g 07:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, JPxG is roughly right. I won't discuss the mechanism and the random website actually can't figure out you are Cullen328, only that you are an administrator.
Here's another scenario: a bad actor could set up a website and lure Wikipedians to it. The website determines which visitors are administrators and logs their IP. Depending on your ISP, your IP may already reveal where you live down to the city block. (GeoIP) The site owner can now scan those IPs for vulnerabilities to get your personal information, or just DDoS you. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Alexis Jazz. Cullen328 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz, so basically an exploit in the MediaWiki software that can be used to gain personal info (and possibly doxx people)? — Davest3r08 (^_^) ^(talk) 22:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't see the phab page, but I think an optional remedy is for an administrator to use a VPN. Since they automatically have IPBE, they can bypass the proxy blocks and continue editing while hiding their actual browsing IP. Might be a temporary solution. The Night Watch (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There are other ways of de-anonymising a browser session not dependant on IP address (and by extension, link it to whatever information is leaked from the cookies). It is probably easier just to turn of third party cookies considering it's just a browser setting (or, optionally, switch to a browser that has it off by default). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

If the exploit is what I think it is, using a VPN won't help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps JPxG's words were a prophecy: I've managed to improve the exploit so a random website can tell that you, the person using the computer and visiting the website, are Wikipedia administrator Cullen328, or whatever your username is.
The remedy remains the same: disable third-party cookies or use separate browsers for Wikipedia and the rest of your browsing needs. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:06, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you're supposed to talk about security tickets publicly until after they're patched. Posting about it on a busy noticeboard seems like a bad idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixing @Matma Rex ping. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, it remains to be seen if this will be patched or if it's even patchable given the nature of third-party cookies. Even if this particular exploit would be made impossible, others can quite possibly be found. I already have some ideas!
But if I (for all intents and purposes a complete idiot) was able to figure this out within 2 days you can bet the farm that smarter people with more time and resources figured this out a long time ago. But they might be keeping it for themselves, or they might be exploiting it. If you don't want to risk your username leaking to some government, porn site or whatever, you need to disable third-party cookies. Patching any of this in MediaWiki will be a cat-and-mouse game that'll last for years until all major browsers make changes to render these exploits impossible. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Quick question... I don't want you to give too much away in public, but does this only apply to admins or could such a site also determine the username of a logged-in non-admin? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no, don't even answer that here - I think I can see the exploit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, if you have any concern over the theoretical possibility of any kind of information that you have entered on any website maybe leaking, disable third-party cookies. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, that would prevent the exploit that I think I can see. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Extra suggestion, folks... when you disable third-party cookies, also log out and log in again (especially if you checked the "Keep me logged in" thing). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• I imagine that this is related to phab:T345249 which is visible. But if so, it would appear that foundation:Policy:Cookie statement is only accurate for a technically incorrect interpretation of "third party cookie". ☆ Bri (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

New account with potential username violation

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.

---

Requesting block or renaming: The account Snarky Media Group appears to be violating Wikipedia's username and advertising policies. Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you for the report, Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian. FYI, future reports like this would be best submitted at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Didn't actually know that existed, thanks! Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you mind going ahead and revoking his talk page access? He got dicky with me about getting blocked. Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2023 (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.

Where to request edits to the Wikipedia username blacklist?

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 a request i'd like to make Puzzle Piece the Wikipedian (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

m:Talk:Title_blacklist. —Cryptic 19:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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

Unblock request by Cyber.Eyes.2005

• Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appeal: Copied from Cyber.Eyes.2005's talkpage per his request:

I am reaching out to appeal an unblock/unban request through the standard offer. I want to express my sincere apologies for my past mistakes regarding Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. I acknowledge that I was wrong, and I humbly request a second chance from the administrators. My only intention was to contribute positively to Wikipedia.

While I have been involved in sockpuppetry, I want to emphasize that I have never made any unconstructive or disruptive edits here. Administrators can review my contributions, as they will reflect my genuine efforts to contribute positively. When I initially registered as Cyber.Eyes.2005, I was not aware of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy, which led me to become involved in it unintentionally. I received a level-2 warning on my talk page from Aman.kumar.goel as the first message. At that time, I also lacked understanding about providing proper references and citations, which resulted in repetitive mistakes. Despite this, I assure you that all my edits were made in good faith. I deeply regret my previous mistakes and sincerely request an opportunity to rectify them. Looking back, I realize that I lacked the necessary maturity to make valuable contributions. However, I have learned from my mistakes. If granted a second chance, I am committed to contributing responsibly and constructively to Wikipedia. I hope to be given the chance to demonstrate my dedication to being a positive contributor to this community.

Questions asked by Z1720:

1. What was the behaviour that led to the original block (for not being here to build an encyclopedia) and why were they against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
2. What articles do you intend to edit about if your unblock request is successful?

For the first question, since I wasn't an experienced editor and didn't know much about Wikipedia policies, I became involved in an edit war on a few articles, especially this one, Brokpa. This eventually led to an indefinite block due to Sock puppetry, both of which were in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I sincerely apologize for this and promise not to repeat these mistakes in the future.

As for the second question, if my unblock request is successful, I would like to contribute to Wikipedia as a whole. This would include tasks such as reverting vandalism and correcting unsourced edits, without being limited to a specific topic or region. However, I have a particular interest in contributing to articles related to South and Central Asia.

If granted a second chance, I am committed to contributing responsibly and constructively to Wikipedia. I hope to be given the chance to demonstrate my dedication to being a positive contributor to this community.

Topic Ban Issue: I'm having a hard time understanding why a topic ban would be imposed in this situation. My edits have consistently been made in good faith and were never disruptive to warrant such a measure. My indefinite block/ban was related to an issue of sockpuppetry, not due to problematic contributions within a specific topic area. If obtaining an unban necessitates a concurrent topic ban, I am amenable to this arrangement. However, I am particularly keen on contributing to articles that align with my areas of interest.

Cyber.Eyes.2005 (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless topic ban from South Asia has been accepted by Cyber.Eyes.2005. Almost every single edit of his in South Asian-related subject was bad. He made such bad edits even with his last sock this year.[85] Topic ban is necessary for keeping him away from the conflicting area while he will prove in 6 months that he can indeed edit Wikipedia by editing subjects that are unrelated to South Asia. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Weak support but only under appropriate unblock conditions. Namely, the topic ban from South Asia, sticking to "one account", and put on final warning conditions, where further disruption will merit blocks for any period of time or indefinitely. I haven't dug too deep to come to a definite conclusion though. WP:ROPE Awesome Aasim 01:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, at this time. I'm generally in favour of second chances, but let's take a look at their history. The Cyber.Eyes.2005 account did not make many edits before getting blocked, but amongst them were this edit, which looks like vandalism but could just have been an accident, and then this reinstatement of the garbled string of characters after Cluebot reverted them. So far, fine, just a newby mistake, but they were already using a sock (Shayyan Behzad) to edit war at various articles (documented at the original SPI report). Now, they were new, but I don't buy it when people say 'I didn't know it wasn't allowed' in circumstances like that. Dishonesty is thought of as immoral in all cultures that I'm aware of. I do not accept that anyone needs to consult a policy document to work out that pretending to be two different people in order to win an edit war is inherently dishonest. I also reject their assertion that everything they have done has been 'in good faith' - using multiple accounts to try to win arguments is an inherently bad faith action. Since their block, their history has been that of someone who just cannot abide by the rules - they have persistently created socks (28 tagged as confirmed, 2 as suspected, who knows how many more that didn't get tagged), all returning to the same articles trying to force their edits in, while fully aware that they were contested. And while they have been doing all this, they have wasted countless hours of contributors' time in chasing down and blocking their socks. They have, as far as I can tell, waited out their 'standard offer' six months, but apart from that we have nothing to go on to establish whether they have changed their attitude towards collaborative editing.
  So, what to do? Well, they are blocked here on enwiki, but they are not globally locked. I haven't been through the central authority pages for all of the socks, but Cyber.Eyes.2005 has no edits to any project other than enwiki. I suspect that English is not their native language. If they could show six months of collaborative, constructive editing at another Wikimedia project - perhaps that of their native tongue - I'd be more inclined to trust they they have developed the attitude needed to contribute here. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Girth Summit above. At least 28 very good reasons to not unblock. I am, however, not so trusting as Girth Summit. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support only in the event that Cyber.Eyes.2005 is subject to the restrictions mentioned by Awesome Aasim, specifically, topic ban from South Asia, sticking to "one account", and put on final warning conditions, where further disruption will merit blocks for any period of time or indefinitely. Outside of stringent conditions such as those, I would oppose. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose 28 socks? With others possibly still out there? They have violated the trust of the community to the point that they need to remain blocked. WP:ROPE was already applied. 28 times. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  That is the whole point of the "one account" restriction (enforceable with a partial block) I am proposing. If a user creates so many sock puppets, it means that they cannot be trusted with second or third or fourth or nth accounts. If the user remains fully blocked, they are just going to continue socking. Awesome Aasim 15:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe. But if someone can't be trusted to not create 28 socks in the first place, why should we trust them to stick to just one account now? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose,this many socks defy any good faith argument. Star Mississippi 23:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't buy for a second that countless socks happened because of being new. Diminishing personal behavior is already something that leads me to a no, and considering the socks were used to continue warring, not to make illicit-but-constructive edits, I seen nothing that ought to lead the community to take the risk. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• This may be irrelevant, but does anyone else think this apology reads like it's produced by AI? Crescent77 (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)·

Undoing REVDELs

Hello, I am requesting the undoing of revision deletions for the follow file pages as their licensing was incorrectly tagged as non-free fair use, but because the images were taken prior to 1955, they are considered in the public domain. Requesting the undo so the higher quality images can be used and so the files can be exported to commons.

• File:Alexander Nicholson.jpg
• File:Alexander Mitchell Duncan.jpg
• File:Thomas O'Callaghan (1845 - 1931).jpg
• File:Alfred George Sainsbury.jpg

––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that these images have broken source links and that the copyright template likewise has a non-functioning link. That said, this table suggests that the copyright expiry times are indeed based on creation date, not publication or death of the author. It looks like the math regarding URAA copyrights not applying is plausible. So I'll undelete these older versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, the appropriate venue to make this kind of request is Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion -FASTILY 00:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, thank you! ––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting closure for redirect for discussion "7 October 2023"

It has been over a week with no response at all for a non-controversial redirect that should never have been added to redirects for discussion. How long is this going to have to stay open for with no correspondence? According to the Redirects for discussion page "Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted." Since there has been no comments or disagreements on the matter for a week now I see no reason not to close it out? Undescribed (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Undescribed: (a) It's not uncontroversial by RFD standards (in fact it's even WP:ARBPIA-related).
(b) You commented in that thread today (right after you posted here).
(c) There are 3 !votes to retarget to one page, one comment suggesting an alternative target, and 2 !votes to keep as is (including yours). At first glance, there isn't an obvious closure result anyways.
(d) The place to request closure requests is WP:Closure requests.
(e) To answer your initial question, it's going to be a while. It's due for a relist. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Undescribed: I'll close it in a bit, once the third of the three users I pinged has had a chance to respond to my clarifying question. Unless someone closes it first. But as MJL said, closure requests go to WP:CR, and please don't start a thread here with a non-neutral and inaccurate description of events like "non-controversial redirect that should never have been added" regarding something that was at 3–2 or 4–2 against keeping when you posted this. This is a fraught topic area, especially this month, and all editors need to do their best to keep emotion out of the picture. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Before you responded, they had already relisted the RFD. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Ugh. Resolved. Thankfully the comments in both parallel discussions were roughly the same distribution. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 11:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Are topic-banned editors allowed to make requests

As a topic-banned editor for biographies, am I allowed to request a review or change by other editors? Light show (talk) 07:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No. I know nothing specific about your own case, but WP:TBAN makes it clear that TBanned editors are not allowed to take part in discussions about the subject they are banned from - proposing changes, or reviewing changes by others, would come under the heading of 'discussions'. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh dear - I see that you took part in such a discussion at User_talk:Light_show#Dame_Maggie_Smith_in_desperate_need_of_a_good_image. I appreciate that you didn't initiate that discussion, but you need to be more careful - that was a violation of your TBan. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

As you were explicitly told here, you are banned from any edits relating to biographies of any kind. A request for an edit on a page is clearly an edit related to that page. Animal lover |666| 16:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

While I'm here, how about reconsidering my bans and maybe removing them, being that they've been active for over six years. The main reason I've never bothered asking earlier is that every time I came to ANI to complain about a few editors uncivility, I got banned from editing those articles, despite being a major contributor. So I decided this isn't a safe environment to blow whistles or point fingers:

If anyone wants to dive in:
1) For complaining about uncivility on Peter Sellers article. I am listed as a major contributor.
2) For complaining about uncivility on Stanley Kubrick article. Also a major contributor.
3) For just asking to post an RfC on Charlie Chaplin article.
P.S. Almost all the subsequent bans were made for violating inadvertently the bans on the others, all very minor errors, much like the "violation" to the Maggie Smith reply. Light show (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

To appeal the ban, create a new section on this page explaining why we (the community) should remove your ban. Keep in mind that the ban is the result of your misbehavior in the topic area before your ban, and convincing the community that you won't return to this misbehavior is essential. The amount of time your ban has been in place is of low relevance; concentrate on your behavior. Take some time to put together your statement - if you fail to get your ban removed, it's at least 6 more months before you can try again. Animal lover |666| 08:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I can see that you comprehensively understand the reasons you were t-banned, so I think the proposal will be an easy pass. Yes, that was sarcasm ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at the Village Pump about this noticeboard

A discussion at the Village Pump about the scope of this noticeboard is ongoing. Your comments will be welcome. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-EC created ARBPIA page fiasco

I have belatedly realised, having already made quite a mess of things, that List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War, which is clearly under ARBPIA, was created by a non-EC user. Heedless of this I started the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serving heads of state and government that have visited Israel during the 2023 Israel–Hamas War, after first enquiring about the topic at WP:NORN. I then realised that the original page creator was a non-EC editor, and that no other editors have really had any substantial input on it. I'm now not sure what either the right or the best way forward is. Should the AfD proceed, or should it be closed procedurally and the content removed, as I think happened with a similar case earlier this week (although for what was a more severe case of dodgy content)? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, deletion is not required per WP:ARBECR, so I'd say most likely it would be left open. Discretion would be similar to any other G5. (though of course page creators are often not aware of the ECR) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a particularly useful list, what's the point of it? Should we have one for Ukraine as well? Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

We have one. Also one for Russia. Briefly discussed at WP:NORN#Odd heads of state visit lists emerging. Shells-shells (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, think I won't be watchlisting them, be interesting to see how many page views they get sometime in the future. Selfstudier (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The AFD is leaning keep. Because of this, it doesn't look like an "obvious" case and I would be inclined to let it run. Just my two cents. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The Banner harassment and Wikihounding

User The Banner is leaving me multiple messages claiming vandalism on my talk page and reverting many of my edits with very little detail. I suspect he does not understand the definition of vandalism. The edits they have restored are all very questionably referenced if at all and not really of encyclopedic significance. What worries me the most is that this particular edit [86] is on a totally different subject to both his and my normal editing which suggests they have been trolling through my edit history for things to revert which to me is a clear case of WP:HOUND of which I am uncomfortable with. Maungapohatu (talk) 04:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look as simple as that. Sure, WP:BURDEN means people adding stuff need a source, but editors who systematically remove probably good information from articles are a nuisance. How about stopping and using an article talk page to discuss an example where the edit warring is occurring? Your edit summaries are possibly accurate and you may be totally correct, but pressing on without discussion on at least one article talk page is not desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This is about hounding and baseless accusations about vandalism not edit warring.Maungapohatu (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a history between you and The Banner, or is the reported problem the only interaction that you recall? You are correct that your edits are not WP:VAND and The Banner is wrong to have left silly templated warnings. However, I think it is better to focus on the substantive issue. At any rate, assuming there is no background history, you should have politely pointed out to the other editor what WP:VAND says and why the warnings are not applicable in a case like this. Wikipedia relies on individuals doing what they can to monitor situations. If necessary, I'm happy to spell out that side issue to The Banner but the underlying problem regarding a disagreement over certain edits remains. Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Maungapohatu has a talk page full of warnings about disruptive editing. I am not hounding him, I just have a lot of airports on my watchlist due to ongoing vandalism by an IP-farm (unrelated to Maungapohatu). But Maungapohatu also sees a sourced destination as That is essentially Unreferenced. It is also not a detail that should be in an encyclopedia. Maybe harsh, but due to that I warned him/her for vandalism. The same with the removal of focus cities by airlines. Not attempt to find sources and rejection of WP:BURDEN. Common attitude is to ask for sources, not bluntly removing info. The same at Aer Lingus. I did not take me long to find the source for this, contrary to his remark There are no sources that suppoRt this WP:BURDEN suggests everything Unreferenced can be deleted. The term focus city is primarily an American thing.And it is quite reasonable the focus city as a term does not apply here. IMHO, Maungapohatu is the problem here. And (s)he is coming after me to hide their own faults, vandalism and disruptive editing. A WP:BOOMERANG is applicable here. The Banner talk 09:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any action against anyone is needed here. No, these edits were not vandalism, but nor were they helpful. The OP seems to be hung up on whose job it is to find sources. It is everyone's job to find sources, including mine. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for election scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion over email that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Superpes15, Martin Urbanec, and Mykola7 solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2023 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Wug·a·po·des 18:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary checkuser privileges for election scrutineers

Original Research Noticeboard

I am requesting that one or two administrators look at the recent activity or lack of activity at the original research noticeboard. It appears to be a place where content disputes go to die, but if the content disputes, due either to original research or to mistaken claims of original research, are not addressed, the conduct disputes surrounding them are likely to persist. I noticed the lack of involvement of neutral volunteers when I sent a dispute about Hickory Wind, a folk song, from DRN to NORN. The two editors have been discussing it there for nearly a week, but the discussion has only been the principals. However, that experience is nothing unusual. I may have missed something, but I don't see any neutral or third-party input on the noticeboard in the past month.

Have I missed something, or is the original research noticeboard the place where both original research and mistaken claims of original research are quietly ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need two separate noticeboards for enforcing WP:NPOV (WP:NPOVN) and WP:NOR (WP:NORN). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Could amalgamate into a "Core content policy compliance noticeboard", in theory. —Alalch E. 23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN, WP:CEN, and maybe WP:ELN, into WP:CNB. I think that would leave WP:BLPN as the only separate content noticeboard. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: You forgot WP:RS/N –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

User:MJL - I thought User:Levivich was making a deliberate distinction because sources are not content, but are where you get the content from. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, no original research can be seen partly as a special case of the reliable sources policy, because original research is when the editor acts as their own source. However, if the volunteers at the neutral point of view noticeboard are willing to comment on original research, that is better than having a noticeboard where original research is reported to a soundproof wall. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there another forum where this noticeboard issue should be discussed? I don't think that we have a WP:NOTICEBOARDNOTICEBOARD for discussions about noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:VPR? 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:48E2:677C:8FB2:67C1 (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Noticeboard proliferation noticeboard already exists for this joke. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

So noted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that NOR/N and NPOV/N get a lot of requests that say "Come to this page to comment". I always though that these boards should be used after a failed consensus or if an issue came up on a page and that the noticeboard was intended to be the place of discussion for it, as to get the eyes of those that follow, instead of requiring outside editors to add a random page to their watchlist if they want to participate more than once. (The exception would be here for formed RFCs where the poster is seeking input from multiple, appropriate boards).

I would not recommend merging NOR and NPOV noticeboards. While there can be overlap, I think that they are distinct enough that we really need both, as long as we have the discussed used as I described. If these boards just become pointers to talk page, then merging may be better, but I think we want to discourage that use more. Masem (t) 00:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

NPOVN is functioning and NORN is not functioning, that's the thing. —Alalch E. 01:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

NORN *is* functioning, it was never meant to be where intractable conflicts go to die... So making whether it effectively ends intractable conflicts the metric by which we judge its effectiveness seems to be something of a red herring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

User:Masem - I was the Original Poster, and said that NORN is not functioning. I would be interested, and I think some of the rest of us would be interested, in other solutions. I agree that they are distinct enough that we need to be able to call attention to both content issues. So what should we do about original research, and especially about synthesis amounting to original research, which is less obvious than original original research? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I think there is a sense in which NPOV and NOR are remarkably similar policies under the surface, but their meanings often get muddled when people bring them up in conversation. In particular, people frequently take NPOV to be about ideas like the tone of the writing, taking a restrained or even-handed attitude towards the topic, etc., when really it's just about hewing close to the sources: "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias." NOR is also about hewing close to the sources: "On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." In both cases, to resolve a dispute, you ask the same questions: what sources do we have on this, what do they actually say, and can we trust them? I really feel like every single content dispute can be addressed that way; that's how I approach things when I do 3O and I feel like it's very reliable. A "source pool analysis noticeboard" might be a reasonable place to approach questions about both NPOV and NOR—like, a place where you can ask, "Do sources X, Y, and Z support conclusion A?" 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 19:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little bit more...In some ways I acknowledge that the idea of a noticeboard like this overlaps with what an article's talk page is for, but I also kind of feel like that's a strange aspect of the whole idea of "noticeboards" in general. In theory, I guess, they're for "general cases" that might have applicability across many articles—I feel like WP:RS/N works fairly well in that regard (although I feel like sometimes people are a little too tempted to over-lean-on vague or sparse discussions there in distant disputes, but that temptation is also maybe inherent to the idea of noticeboards). Anyway, to some extent, the idea of whether sources X, Y, and Z support conclusion A could have general applicability...it's not intrinsically specific to a single article... 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the difference between WP:NPOVN and WP:NORN is sort of fundamental to the policies in question. NPOV violations are just easier to notice out in the wild than OR violations, which usually manifest as either unsourced statements (and so get deleted or ed) or manifest crackpottery (and so go to WP:FTN). Loki (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO thats more of a behavioral issue on the part of those "principles" than anything wrong with NORN. Bludgeoning is obviously going to discourage the participation of non-involved editors. Involved parties have a duty to make space for uninvolved parties on noticeboard and if they're not doing that then we have appropriate remedies for that sort of behavioral issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic help request

• Eshera assault (AfD discussion)
• Special:Permalink/1174498007

A second set of eyes on this, from Rosguill or other administrators experienced in the Eastern Europe contentious topics area, would be appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Huston family

The facts are getting distorted: [87], [88], [89], [90]. 76.89.194.44 (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a copy of a report that is more properly at WP:ANI and WP:BLPN created by the same person. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Admin review of procedural close issue is required

I started the RFC[91] by asking interested editors are they in favor information ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” changed to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. I wrote the introductory explanation and presented the sources. The same RFC was closed due to neutrality issues. An example for this RFC was a question I asked in the article Marco Polo (Should the text in the lead describing Marco Polo as Italian merchant be changed from "Marco Polo was an Italian merchant" to "Marco Polo was an Venetian merchant"?)[92] And there were no problems with neutrality and the RFC itself was closed without any problem. I would like an explanation in sense what question I should have asked to make RFC neutral? Information that Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer is already in the article and based on the sources. Information that Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer was presented at RFC with presented sources. If everything is fine with my question, I would ask the administrators to enable the continuation of this RFC. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's my intro that isn't neutral? I would delete my introduction and just ask interested editors this: ”I ask interested editors whether the introductory part should be harmonized with more RS and instead of information that ”Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer” be changed to ”Christopher Columbus was an Genoese explorer”. Is it okay now? And sorry for the introductory part which I wrote in order to explain my point of view as my opinion in this RFC. Mikola22 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) That question is way to long, and anything but neutral. A simple "Should Columbus be described as an Italian or Genoese explorer?" was all that was needed. For example the question of the previous RFC you mentioned was The biography of Christopher Columbus describes him as an Italian navigator. The question is whether that nationality should be removed as inappropriate. Keeping any notifications as short and simple should also avoid any issues with neutrality. You can always present your case in your own comment to the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Mikola22 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting here Mikola, that I introduced a neutral question at the beginning and you deleted my comment. Perhaps you should approach this process a little more calmly.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Bad Pre-Mature RfC Closure by BilledMammal

Apologies for the text block…Full context of the issue is given as well as a small timeline.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Keraunos was recently closed ([93]) by BilledMammal with the reasoning, “RfC is premature; a search of the archives show that this source has not been subject to repeat discussions, and thus doesn't meet the requirements listed at the top of the page for an RfC to be held. Note, the italic part was added by me as that was colored in the closure reasoning.

That reasoning seems a little odd, given WP:RFCBEFORE does not state anything that “repeated discussions” had to have occurred prior to the RfC starting, especially since WP:RSP/WP:RSN is mostly done through RfCs. Anyway, in the RfC, past talk page discussions/disagreements were mentioned (naming a few):

1. Talk page questioning source reliability in 2009
2. Disagreements in July 2023 about the source ([94][95])
3. Source disagreement in November 2022 ([96])
4. Article with ESSL source + 2 Keraunos sources only marked with a “unreliable source” template in October 2022.

So, with those listed, despite not having formalized discussions, there is clearly a disagreement between editors on the source. Actually, even the RfC showed that, as myself and Hurricane Noah were the only two editors who !voted in the RfC, with myself saying it is reliable and Hurricane Noah saying it was generally unreliable.

Here is why the “Pre-Mature” RfC closure was bad: As stated in WP:RSPCRITERIA, For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. During the RfC, when it was suggested the RfC may have been started pre-maturely/badly, even Hurricane Noah stated there was clear disagreement occurring, so the RfC was still needed. Hurricane Noah stated that “withdrawing this RfC would sweep the issue under the rug and simply require another discussion. Why not just tackle this here since we are already discussing it?”

I brought to BillMammal’s attention (Talk page) that the RfCs on WP:RSN should probably not be closed early unless it is a clear WP:SNOW closure as it interrupts them. Their response was to state the first half of WP:RSPCRITERIA, conveniently stopping right before the phrase I bolded above. Instead of wanting to discuss the issue, BilledMammal said if I wanted to challenge the early closure, I needed to come here. So I am. I believe BilledMammal, while not intentionally trying to, disrupted a needed discussion by early closing it without a valid reason. Also, it appears they do not fully understand WP:RSPCRITERIA, given they ignored the phrase about a uninterrupted RfC in their closing as well as after it being mentioned on their talk page. I formally request an admin re-open the RfC and, as Hurricane Noah (who I disagreed with in the RfC) stated nicely, not “sweep the issue under the rug”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Please don't start RfCs until you've exhausted the alternatives.—S Marshall T/C 08:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Bruh, it is WikiProject Weather members disagreeing with each other. Well…I ain’t willing to spend the time to try to open more discussions, so I guess the issue will be swept under the rug, like it was sort of back in 2009, 2022, and July 2023. Cheers y’all? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No, it's an RfC to classify the reliability of a source at RSN. Cheers, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• You would be correct if this was an RfC in a general location. Your RfC was located at WP:RSN, where, as BM noted in the close, there are additional requirements; specifically, they state RfC's for classification should not be opened unless the source has been subject to repeat discussions. You say "past talk page discussions/disagreements were mentioned (naming a few)", but go on to list three article diffs (invalid) and one talk page discussion ... from 2008. BM's logic could not have been sounder. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• AirshipJungleman29, I just located Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Archive 1#Keraunos?? (2011 Talk page discussion), which is a previous discussion specifically about the source in question. There was 2 talk page discussion previously as well as several instances of disagreement. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Anything from within, say, the last decade that you can find by searching talk page archives for the word "Keraunos"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sadly, no. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• WeatherWriter, It's seldom appropriate to post at WP:AN and I don't believe this case should have come here. They were fully right by closing it. My comments made weeks ago were simply an attempt to avoid wikipedia bureaucracy and continue the discussion there since it was already started. Noah, AA^Talk 10:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of closing this with the exact same reasoning, but BilledMammal beat me to it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There's currently a discussion open at WT:RSN#Suggested changes to the edit notice to include the disclaimer about RFCs in the edit notice as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out that issue right after you opened the RFC. If the opportunity cost wasn't high I would have closed it then. Instead I hoped that you would have caught the hint and closed the RFC in favor of a discussion. Good close. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with BilledMammal here. You don't need permission to find better sources to cite and to remove unreliable sources of information. Awesome Aasim 18:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO the close was a good move. If that is the only question, then a close review (or a bold reversal, maybe asking for an admin close) would be the next step. The way that you brought it up here (= neither of those) would be the way that you would bring up a conduct issue, and it certainly isn't that. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Audit of indef IP blocks

Moved from WP:AN/I

 – Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I've found many indef IP blocks on Special:BlockList, some of them are obviously wrongly set, while some indef blocks for open-proxy seemed to be harsh. e.g. an indef block on 2016 for an IP as open proxy, but these addresses may not allocated to open proxy today. I'd like to ask for help if some sysops want to clean them up. -Lemonaka‎ 15:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Link to the filtered list — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You may find this list more useful. ST47 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Lemonaka: I know that @Yamla, @RoySmith, @zzuuzz, and I have all undone some of these lately. But it's tedious working through them, and a lot of the old proxy blocks are still valid. If you want to put together a table of old IP blocks, the reason for blocking, and why you think the reason no longer applies, feel free to drop that at WP:AN. I'm especially open to undoing old schoolblocks that have been in place for more than half of Wikipedia's existence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I usually allow account creation on long-term school blocks these days and would like to see that become common practice. If it was up to me, that's what I'd do with most of the old school blocks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I got into this a while ago and then lost steam. In general, I agree that many of these should be cleared out, and policy for new school blocks should probably limit them to a year, or at most several years, except in extraordinary situations. RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Listing:

1. 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:0:0:0:0/64--Too harsh for one strike, bad reason
2. 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:977:1FB8:DD1D:4B7D --Too harsh for one strike, bad reason
3. 2A01:4C8:1084:CFA3:C5B5:4AF4:1A01:595C --indefinite for first vandalism
4. 79.43.155.16 --indefinite for first vandalism
5. 2409:4063:4382:AAC0:0:0:0:0/64--indef for first vandalism
6. 68.112.39.0/27 indefinate old school block
7. 192.235.8.3 Indefinate old school block

-Lemonaka‎ 01:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

God they are so many, I'd like to list them later. -Lemonaka‎ 01:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

If we're doing this now, this isn't really an incident. I'll move to AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so I've looked through all of the 2023 blocks and some of 2022. Most look like simple misclicks. I was going to ping everyone who'd made them, but that's a lot of hassle for all involved, so instead, unless anyone objects in the next day or two, I'd like to start bumping down (to a shorter term or time served) any entries at User:ST47/indef-blocked ips that are for simple reasons like vandalism or edit warring, unless there's a long history of disruption.

For ones that may have been intentional, probably worth asking individually:

• @Daniel Case: Does 2001:1970:4962:D100:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) need to be indef?
• @PresN: What about 2600:1700:1B21:76C0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))?
• @Oshwah: 103.251.17.183 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 85.202.184.54 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))?

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin In addition to check after being blocked, some policy needed to be updated to limit indefinite block of an IP. The blocking policy for indeffing IP is currently ambiguous.
Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses said

IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time.

But a better way should suggest how long it may be blocked, or the range of length the block can be. Even open proxy may not be indeffed, a better way is using BOT to scanning them when starting to edit. School blocks may lengthen every time they blocked but may not be blocked indefinitely on the first time. There's really lot to discuss about. -Lemonaka‎ 02:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the current wording of WP:IPBLENGTH is pretty clear: "IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked". Occasional exceptions arise, and very statically-owned proxy ranges are one of them. Very static IPs/ranges used by LTAs are another. Institutional IPs with extraordinarily high rates of vandalism may be another. If I were to add one thing to the essay it would be something like "In a given year there will usually be fewer than 5 valid indefinite blocks of IP addresses." -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but what about a 20 or 30 years of block against an IP address, are they legitimate? We have 10-year block though. My proposal is to set a maximum blocked length and standardize the process for using indefinite IP blocks. -Lemonaka‎ 03:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The de facto maximum block length for IPs is 10 years. There's a report somewhere of unusually long blocks. They either get shortened or converted to indef. I don't think there's any need to standardize something there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I concurred. This may origin from the difference between statutory law and case law. -Lemonaka‎ 04:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Tamzin - ......DANG IT! I managed to let myself indefinitely block an IP address... Twice! I should really take some time and add code to my scripts to give them the ability detect if the indefinite I'm about to place is on an IP, then spit an error back... Anyways, thanks for going through and auditing the IP blocks over the last year. This is something I try to do at least once a year, while posting the results here. So... thanks for saving me from having to do that! :-) Those IP addresses should not have been indefinitely blocked. Enough time has elapsed since the block was applied (both in December 2022), so I've removed the block on both of them.

For the record, you are 100% correct. Unless an extremely extenuating circumstance completely out of the norm exists for a certain IP or situation, IP addresses and IP address ranges should not be indefinitely blocked. It's okay to set the IP block many years out, so long as they are set to eventually expire (shoot, there are a pile of school IPs that are on 5, 7, even 10 year blocks). This is the reason why I performed yearly audits, just as you're doing right now. Again, thanks for putting forth the hard work and effort, and for keeping us honest. ;-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I probably made a mistake there; I might have been in the middle of indeffing some registered accounts. Since it's been more than six months, I have unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake, to be honest; when an IP address spends several days subtly vandalizing a range of pages, and upon being blocked proceeds to continue for several more days, I'm not terribly interested in wasting my time sending more than one warning or debating whether "literally infinite" or "long enough that they never come back" is the right option to pick. The result is the same- it's an IPv6 address, they'll have a different one if they ever want to edit productively in a few years, and I've never seen an ip address get 2+ warnings during a vandalism spree and decide to become a productive editor. If consensus is that "long enough that they never come back" is the right dropdown option, then sure, dropped it to 1 year, and I'll do my best not to re-offend. --PresN 14:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@PresN the issue is that IP addresses get reallocated over time. Even static addresses don't last forever; carrier networks get reconfigured, customers change carriers, etc. For a typical residential customer, 1 year is plenty long, and if abuse persists after the year, 2 or 3 should be about the limit. Even for something like an open proxy running out of a data center, it's hard to imagine any scenario where blocks longer than that make any sense. RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

My three on that list are all partial blocks from specific articles of clearly static IPs for long term disruption to said articles and I believe they should stay as is. Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail I'm looking at the first one. The "long term edit war" consists of 5 edits over about 13 months. My general rule for blocking IPs is to block them for as long as it appears they've belonged to the same user, because that's a first-order approximation to how dynamic the allocation. Using that rule, a block of 1 year would have made sense here.

For the second one, the IP went active 6 weeks before your block. Blocking it indef was clearly an overreaction. Block it for a couple of months and see what happens. If they come back, a reblock of a year could be justified. But all making it indef does is at some point in the future when it get reallocated to somebody else, you've created a problem that somebody else will need to sort out. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: P-blocks are less of an issue, but Roy's comment above^{intended referent was cmt. of 15:00, but applies to cross-post of 15:41 too} still applies. Sooner or later they won't be the same person. 168.195.126.171 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) has only been in use 18 months; 50.204.200.142 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) had 2 edits in 2015 and then everything else was in the 6 weeks before you blocked (and is a p-block from all of mainspace, so closer to a siteblock); 80.111.4.80 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))'s disruptive edits run December '21 to June '23 (including after the p-block). I would say set the first to 2 years from most recent edit, unblock the second, and make the third a siteblock running to 18 months from most recent edit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:42, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Great minds, @RoySmith. Or something like that... ;) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Easy ones done

Okay, per the above, I have handled 22 cases from 2022 and 2023 where the block appeared to be a routine IPblock where indef was set accidentally. Based on the principle of blocking for roughly as long as the IP has been in use by the person in question, 17 were commuted to time served and 5 were converted to temporary blocks. That leaves:

• The three blocks by Canterbury Tail, discussed above: Special:Contribs/168.195.126.171, Special:Contribs/50.204.200.142, Special:Contribs/80.111.4.80. It would be nice to have a bit more discussion of them.
• @Courcelles: 84.65.85.60 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is blocked for socking (non-CU block). Is there a CU aspect or other extenuating circumstance here?
• @PhilKnight: 45.129.234.49 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is blocked for PROMO, so I was expecting it to fall into the accidental-indef category, but it turns out all their edits are OS'd. Is there something in the OS'd stuff that justifies an indef?
• @Drmies: Does 82.24.202.71 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) still need to be indeffed?

Thank you all in advance. Next round, old schoolblocks! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: - I have unblocked 45.129.234.49. Thanks. PhilKnight (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin: go ahead and unblock if you like--it's been a while now. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Think I had some accounts in the mix when I issued mine, must have hit them all with the same hammer by mistake. Shortened that one. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Also to note there are a few IP blocks done by WMF as office actions. Can you maybe consult with WMF before shortening the block? I think it might be accidental.

But to be honest, I don't think there is anything wrong with an indefinite IP block as long as the IP is able to still appeal the block and show that it no longer relates to them. For example, with open proxies, we can have those blocked indefinitely until it is confirmed that the IP no longer belongs to an open proxy. Awesome Aasim 16:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that was intentional on the WMF's part, but I'll drop a ping to @WMFOffice and/or @JSutherland (WMF)​ to confirm. For context, the blocks in question are 36.227.120.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) and 1.163.0.0/18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). They are the only outstanding Office blocks on enwiki, at least of the User:WMFOffice epoch. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Are indef IP p-blocks okay?

So, Canterbury Tail above and Cullen328 on my talkpage have both expressed the opinion that indef P-blocks of single IPs (or IPv6 /64s) are acceptable. I rarely find myself disagreeing with either admin, but I think Wikipedia:Blocking policy § IP address blocks (policy) and Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses § Indefinite blocks (explanatory essay) are pretty clear here. Now, both of those sections predate the use of partial blocks, and one could make the case that p-blocks should be a carve-out. They're definitely, on balance, less disruptive, and I don't dispute for instance Black Kite's several indef p-blocks of disruptive /16s from a few year-related articles. But in the latter case there is, as I understand it, years of disruption. So in short my answer to this question is they're less problematic, but should only be used for long-term disruption. Otherwise, many individually not-too-bad indef p-blocks add up to a headache over time, as has happened here. (Note: I will leave a cross-post to this section at WT:BLOCK.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but one year blocks would be better. IP's change over time. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I've not clearly expressed my view, but the odds of an IP returning to the same article with a different user and wanting to edit is extremely low. Like you're better investing in lottery tickets low. The only exception to that is IPs that represent institutions like schools, universities and the like. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Canterbury Tail: I like what you said better.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes In my view, pageblocking an obviously disruptive IP from one specific article is dramatically different than a sitewide block. Like using a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. But if the consensus is that indefinite pageblocks of IPs are not acceptable, then I will limit such blocks to one year. I hope that other editors will comment. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I will go with consensus, quite happily. But it is my opinion that it's non-harmful. Canterbury Tail talk 19:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there isn't much collateral damage to the average individual p-block of this nature. The issue is with assessing them in aggregate. Someone (me in this case) has to check periodically if indef IP blocks are still needed. I guess, yes, we could just ignore partial ones, but we do plan for Wikipedia to be around for quite a while, I hope, and sooner or later someone will have to take a look. (I mean, maybe not, with potential IP masking or an end to IP editing, but who knows where either of those might go.) So that's a nontrivial downside compared to little chance of benefit beyond the short term. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think they're definitely a lot more ok than site blocks, but I still wouldn't see the reason to block for e.g. 3 or 5 years instead of indefinitely. I think it's fine go straight to a long pblock rather than escalating with site-wide blocks. Galobtter (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to assess on a case-by-case basis, say if someone requests removal of the partial block?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say most people when they see block are not going to appeal it. But I see the argument - but at the same time a 5 year block would do 99% of what an indefinite block would do. Galobtter (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

See here's one thing with my view on indefinite blocks (not just P-blocks but site wide as well.) They're not permanent. They're until there's a reason to lift it. I think a lot of admins are more likely to lift an indefinite block for good reason than an X time block. There's a feeling that a definite length block should often stay, but an indefinite (again not permanent) can be negotiated and adjusted. I tend to use indefinite as a tool in blocks to ensure editors don't just return after time served and continue doing what they were doing when their behaviour isn't acceptable, but instead need to convince the community in order to re-obtain their editing privileges. Canterbury Tail talk 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, no they're not OK and we shouldn't encourage them in any way (by way of 'carve-out' or similar). They're bad practice because they generate work for people reviewing them, or even not reviewing them as others get reviewed. Tamzin has it right, IMO. Do us all a favour and just set them long time, thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I've seen several three-year site blocks for some IPs and more partial blocks for other IPs. That is probably a pragmatic equivalent for indefinite but I wouldn't object to five years if someone thought that was warranted. More than one year is definitely called for in some cases where an obsessive IP has more or less no useful edits but who periodically returns to their favorite topic. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the precursor thread to this, what I do is look at the IP's history and try to figure out how long this IP has been associated with the same user. I block for approximately that long. No need to obsess about the details, as long as I've got the right one out of {1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 1 year}. For residential IPs, even static allocations will change over time as networks get reconfigured or customers change carriers. And even if they don't, in the common case of a kid playing with mommy's or daddy's computer, they're likely to lose interest (or just plain grow up a bit) by next year. In the case of a school, if it's one particular student who's being a jerk, they're likely to have moved on in a year, or certainly in a few years.

In summary, if the IP has no history, make a reasonable length block. If at the end of that, problems recur, by all means make a longer block. But in almost all cases, a year is about as long as you want to go and it's almost inconceivable that anything longer than 2 or 3 years can be justified. RoySmith (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

In general I agree, and reviewing my logs it appears I follow that procedure. However, I have seen occasional three-year blocks that I agreed with, I think particularly for what appeared to be open proxies. Sorry, can't find an example now. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

First, how partial is "partial"? A block from one article is a very different beast than, say, a block from all of mainspace. But in both cases, the use of an indef on an IP, whether partial or sitewide, should be very rare. Remember that while all of us here know what IP addresses are and how they work, many (probably most) Internet users have no idea how networking actually works, and even if they've heard of an "IP address" they have no idea what it actually is or how they're assigned, so they may have no idea to make an unblock request stating "I think someone else abused this IP before I had it, and it looks like that was seven years ago, could you unblock it now?". They probably think that for some reason, the block is targeted at them, and just get discouraged and leave. It should be a pretty extraordinary case that a block longer than a year gets applied to an IP, and even more extraordinary that it should be indef. That doesn't mean "never", but pretty close to it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes for individual pages only. No for namespaces, as the risk of collateral damage is too high. Basically the criteria should be: if they return to editing the pblocked domain in 5 years, can we be confident (per WP:DUCK) that they are the same user? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes for the individual pages, but I wouldn't be particularly bothered if those indefs of mine on the year-related pages were converted to, say, 3 years. I suspect they'll have got bored by then. Black Kite (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I don't see a problem with indef IP partial blocks. I don't even see a problem with indef IP blocks. The whole point of a block is to prevent further disruption, and if an IP is reassigned, it would be trivial for an administrator to review, see the IP is reassigned, and then unblock. Indefinite is not "infinite", just however long is needed to stop disruption. Awesome Aasim 13:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment)Yes, but please limit such kind of indef block. If partial blocks can stop them, do not impose a site block. If single IP block can work, do not range indef. Thanks. -Lemonaka‎ 12:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• There seems to be a significant split here and I'm wondering if this should go to a proper RfC. Or maybe a viable compromise answer here is "They're okay, but it's also okay for any admin to downgrade them to tempblocks after a while", the same way we treat indefinite protections. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 22:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's also pretty much the existing IP block policy. I was around when we were working on the original policy for indef IP blocks, and also lifted many of them. I've concluded a couple of things: people will always indef-block IPs, and people will always review them and eventually lift the blocks. It's unfortunate when admins create the extra work for reviewers when a simple long block will suffice, but that's always been the case. In my opinion there's no need to change anything. There's a big difference between a few IPs getting indeffed, and saying it's OK to indef IPs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about ban evasions

• 65.92.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

When an IP user is very active all of a sudden, and makes the impression that they are experienced in WP matters, I'd be inclined to suspect that it is a case of ban evasion. What should I do by lack of further evidence? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Marcocapelle. Consider mentioning the IP here so that editors good at sock hunting can check the contribs and look for patterns. In general, I think WP:AGF applies until evidence emerges to justify a WP:SPI. You can always ask on their user talk page if they've ever edited on any other accounts. In my opinion, this is less about getting them to admit it (an actual sock would never admit their old master account) and more about putting up a red flag for other talk page visitors. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Also there are a lot of very experienced editors that have changing IPs, some moreso than all but the most experienced registered editors. They have never caused any trouble and are not socks or blocked. I think as above you need to Wp:AGF until such time as indications trend otherwise. Canterbury Tail talk 14:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your good advice. The IP is 65.92.247.90, they are active under that address since 27 October. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Yes, assuming good faith is good advice. I've done a quick look around and there's no evidence of any evasion, and plenty of (on-wiki) evidence that this is a good faith editor who has been on a rotating IP address that the ISP dynamically assigns, since at least September 2021. So at least 2 years' experience, there. For what it's worth, I myself was like this (in fact worse, since my ISP assigned from several address ranges), on rotating IP addresses, for longer than that before I created this account. And yes, the person here has already been asked and said that xe is quite happy with just the tools that xe has. Uncle G (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

About KENGRIFFEY24FAN's editing behavior

• KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just came across this user adding unsourced content while recent changes patrolling and realized after reverting their edits that they have years of warning templates on their user talk page for the exact same issues. It really can't be taking that long for the concept to set in that we need reliable sources, and I wonder at this point if this is a case of just stubborn refusal to "get it". —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Aaand now they're edit-warring their changes back in. (diff) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I didn't do anything wrong... KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that I didn't know how to cite things for a while? I was adding content that has been generally unsourced for years. When someone becomes a Free agent in sports, people don't cite it. So maybe you should "get it" and calm down. KENGRIFFEY24FAN KENGRIFFEY24FAN (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That's enough. I've indeffed since it seems like you amply understand that people want you to cite your sources but you simply don't want to. Galobtter (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I just reverted 107.5.95.30 (talk · contribs) on Shohei Ohtani for making the same changes I described above. I really hope this isn't KENGRIFFEY24FAN adding sockpuppeting to the list of policies they've violated. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

They weren't blocked the IP edited so I'm assuming it's a different editor. Galobtter (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

KingAgniKai edits

KingAgniKai (talk · contribs) comes time to time to make disruptive edits in the Boruto article. They have been warned before to discuss their ideas at the article's talk page, but they refuse and instead insists on making edits the way they want. Checking their edit history, it doesn't seem that they have genuine intentions to contribute constructively. Xexerss (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I provided proof to make sure the edits aren't wrong. This is my 2nd time editing and the last time I didn't provide proof. KingAgniKai (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I will discuss it first before posting edits KingAgniKai (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I have posted on the articles talk page. I apologize for not doing that sooner. KingAgniKai (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

EC permissions

I temp dropped the bit but they didn't give me EC, if someone could please do me the favor, I would appreciate. I'm expecting to get the bit back in a while, but I need to edit my user page, which is ECP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Multi-page edit warring on Tulku and Western tulku, their talk pages, and other related pages

For a quick introduction, I created the Western tulku page (still currently a work in progress) and was met with almost immediate pushback from User:Skyerise. Skyerise is of the opinion that this was intended as an attack page to delegitimise Western tulku. I won't try to make any accusations here, but I'd really appreciate it if an admin were to arbitrate here. Please see:

• Western tulku and history;
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western tulku discussion there;
• Tulku and recent history;
• My talk page; and
• Skyerise's talk page.

I find myself getting incredibly petty here so it's time to step back. This is only intensifying. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You've given no warnings nor have you taken this to the correct venue first, which is WP:3RRN. If you believe I have broken 3RR then please follow the proper reporting process at WP:3RR. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm clearly talking about the massive row that's happened since I first created the page and not any specific incident of WP:3RRN. hence multipage. You know, disputing neutrality, flagging for deletion, and proposing a merge all at once, then unilaterally merging the pages without consensus or discussion despite opposition.

Clearly something is going on and this is clearly disruptive for both of us. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You have created an article which inappropriately separates out religious figures by ethnicity. That's the root of the problem. Skyerise (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Blame the academics who coined the term. Plus, this isn't the venue to continue this argument. I went here for arbitration. It's not the place to clutch pearls. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

But is it a place to mention that you have stalked me to an article I am working on and seem to be harassing me on both talk pages. Perhaps WP:BOOMERANG should apply here? Skyerise (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You literally started the merge and neutrality discussion and have been merging the pages without consensus. It's not stalking if you're the one who is creating disputes and leaving messages on my talk page. Plus, when I first created the article, you kept disruptively editing the Western tulku page. Holy shit dude. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You have complained that tulku was too short. You said to go ahead, only clarifying that you meant AfD rather than merge after I had already finished the merge. I've expanded tulku from 10,980 bytes to 48,921 bytes in the last few days, most of which has nothing to do with Western tulkus. Perhaps you could also do something productive? Skyerise (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You've continued to merge the pages long after it became obvious what I meant. I didn't complain it was too short; I noted that I didn't want to flood the tulku page with a discussion of Western tulku. I still stand by the claim that this deceptive in the context of your claim that I've forked the pages. If someone wasn't aware you had been merging the content to the older Tulku page, maybe your claim that I was creating a POV fork'd attack page might hold up. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll say this one more time in bold: it's totally inappropriate to split an article about title holders of any religion by their ethnicity. I'm sure you'll be getting feedback about that from other editors soon enough. Have the last word here if you want. I've got better things to do. Skyerise (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't make any accustations but it looks like User:Skyerise has canvassed two users in the deletion discussion on Western tulku. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Both the editors I contacted know that I am looking for their independent opinions, which I value, and not !votes. They do not always agree with me, nor do I expect them to. That's not "canvassing". Skyerise (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So what is it when you hit up two friends of yours and then claim I'll be getting feedback about that from other editors soon enough? MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 20:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, both editors disagree with me as frequently as they agree with me. It's called "more eyes". I'm done here. Skyerise (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Issue on Mt. Sinai Holy Church of America

The admin continues to make changes on that page that dishonors the leadership of our great organization by removing their titles from their names. 2600:6C5A:5AF0:9BA0:E98F:BBD6:C1B8:5A14 (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Article: Mount Sinai Holy Church of America.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits like this one are completely acceptable (see MOS:PREFIX). This has nothing to do with "honor," and referring to an organization as "our" and "great" indicates you have both a POV and a conflict of interest. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I blocked Special:contributions/2600:6C5A:5AF0:9BA0:0:0:0:0/64 on October 10 for one week for disruptive editing at the article. My guess is they are the same person as Knightja, whom I just indeffed for not following the proper procedures for undisclosed paid editing, and continuing to edit the article after having been warned about their conflict of interest.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed motion to modify the extended confirmed restriction provisions

The Arbitration Committee is considering a motion to modify the provisions of the extended confirmed restriction. Comments are welcome at the relevant request for clarification.

In accordance with the procedural requirements for modifications of the Arbitration Committee procedures, a duplicate copy of the motion is available at the Committee's public motions page.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed motion to modify the extended confirmed restriction provisions

Based.shqiptar.frompirok's behaviour on Wikipedia

After a long discussion on Jazzar Pasha's talk page, he, Based.shqiptar.frompirok seems to have thrown a tantrum after his views have been challenged, refusing to participate in the discussion, while continuing editing the page.

Writing several times in the messages that he leaves with his edits that "the conversation is over". He seems to be intent on keeping his version up, while refusing to participate in any discussion. We've already had a discussion in the talk page, his last message there reads "Your reluctance to answer my questions raises concerns about the depth of your understanding of this topic. Furthermore, I have yet to see any substantial evidence supporting the assertion that he was a Bosniak, making this discussion more or less done and pointless."

To which i replied "What questions do you feel like i haven't answered?"

I request the mods to help me call him to continue this in the talk page if he wishes. Rijekaneretva (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

User:Spike 'em

I am little confused, is Spike'em being edited by a troll? I wasn't sure if something odd was going on or if I should just ignore it. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like one of our long-term pests has taken a liking to impersonating them. WP:RBI will do the job, as ever. JavaHurricane 17:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Two impersonators blocked and Spike's page move protected. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

k, cheers, seeing his account messed with on my watchlist did look like a red flag. Govvy (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern! Spike 'em (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There also seem to be user Spike 'em 4 and Spike 'em 5 as well - both created 6 September, neither of whom have edited. I stopped looking at that point, but there may be more. If there's a quick way of checking for more it might help. I suspect they have the same source Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I have zapped 4 and 5 - there is no 6. GiantSnowman 16:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This lets you search for usernames. That was all of them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

ARBPIA article Ibrahim Biari created by non-ec account

Clearly in the ARBPIA topic area, and also beyond the fact it is, besides two edits, entirely the product of ineligible accounts, makes a series of disputed claims in Wikipedia's voice. Should be deleted per the extended confirmed restriction, and if not that then BLP as it is claiming somebody did X, Y, and Z based on the Israeli military and further claiming they are dead, again based solely off the Israeli military. nableezy - 03:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy May be related, but I actually am wondering if G5 should be expanded to include these articles, so we would not have to waste time at the ANB. Awesome Aasim 18:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that ArbCom did not mandate, but allowed for, the deletion of these articles so Idk if it works to make them a CSD candidate. But if this isnt being deleted for the EC vio then it should be for the BLP1E issue, the fact we dont even have confirmation that this person existed or is alive or is dead, and all we are publishing are a series of claims by a combatant in an active war. But if at all possible, Id like to avoid one more pointless discussion to the 30 other ones happening in this topic area, so if it can be deleted without me nominating it that would be splendid imo. nableezy - 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Criteria for speedy deletion is discretionary as far as I am aware, and if a CSD is declined it does not stop the page from being nominated at XfD. Awesome Aasim 18:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've moved it to draft. If someone EC-confirmed wants to take a stab at it then fine, but at the moment it's simply an article about someone who never had an article before pretty much sourced to the IDF. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: It's already been noted on this board in prior discussions that such articles are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G5, though the execution falls to administrator discretion. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)